Market Anarchy

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3113
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Ixtellor » Fri May 21, 2010 8:44 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying, logically, government is unjustified


I believe your making a moral argument, not a logical one.

snapshot182 wrote:If you want to attempt to control things with violence--or even worse, bow to those who do, as though there was any dignity in that--be my guest.


There is ample evidence to suggest the threat of violence to get a desired behavior -- is the way of the entire animal kingdom. Even going into a store and buying a good, is an entire event dictated by the threat of violence.

Government is like parenting. Parents threaten violence to get a desired behavior and so does government.
Even the most liberal parents are going to ultimatly back up their corrective behavior with a threat of violence.

Its a proven and effective way of getting living organisms to operate in a way that promotes a behavior norm.

You can argue about the 'norms', but the violence is a rational and more importantly effective/useful tool.
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Fri May 21, 2010 9:09 pm UTC

Ixtellor wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying, logically, government is unjustified


I believe your making a moral argument, not a logical one.
I apply logic to morality in order to get consistency from moral argument. There's no justification outside of opinion. You simply can't say, "There ought be government," and remain in any objective sphere.

snapshot182 wrote:If you want to attempt to control things with violence--or even worse, bow to those who do, as though there was any dignity in that--be my guest.


There is ample evidence to suggest the threat of violence to get a desired behavior -- is the way of the entire animal kingdom. Even going into a store and buying a good, is an entire event dictated by the threat of violence.

Government is like parenting. Parents threaten violence to get a desired behavior and so does government.
Even the most liberal parents are going to ultimatly back up their corrective behavior with a threat of violence.
There's growing evidence to suggest that violence and threats of violence inflicted against children causes undesirable effects, including brain damage. See "The Bomb in the Brain" 4 part series that was posted on Youtube for the citations and interviews with neuroscientists and psychologists which confirm this.

Its a proven and effective way of getting living organisms to operate in a way that promotes a behavior norm.
You can argue about the 'norms', but the violence is a rational and more importantly effective/useful tool.
I really could care less if you think violence is useful. The fact is, violence doesn't make you right, doesn't make you moral, it is a philosophically invalid position to hold. You're probably being hypocritical too since you likely don't and wouldn't initiate violence in any sphere of your life.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby nitePhyyre » Sat May 22, 2010 3:17 am UTC

Indon wrote:I think a good test for if you have a good utility metric is that, if you can freely adjust the source of the metric, you win. In this case, since our utility metric is one over civilization, free control of it means you should win at civilization.

Nope! Each person participates in civilization because they think it is better for them. Otherwise they would be hermits. The metric should apply at the level of individuals. Remember -- For man, alone or in small tribes naked in a forest hunting and gathering is the natural state. Anything else is a choice. That choice has to be driven by some force.

snapshot182 wrote:I really could care less if you think violence is useful. The fact is, violence doesn't make you right, doesn't make you moral, it is a philosophically invalid position to hold. You're probably being hypocritical too since you likely don't and wouldn't initiate violence in any sphere of your life.

Think for a second about football tackles. Tackling someone is an act of violence. Now imagine there is someone walking with their headphones on. They are about to get run over by a car. You yell out to them, but they don't hear you. You have enough time to run up and tackle him out of the way. What is the moral choice?

Do you let people die in order to remain ideologically pure in your desire for nonviolence?
Or do you initiate violence for a greater good and save lives?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Sat May 22, 2010 3:53 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I really could care less if you think violence is useful. The fact is, violence doesn't make you right, doesn't make you moral, it is a philosophically invalid position to hold. You're probably being hypocritical too since you likely don't and wouldn't initiate violence in any sphere of your life.

Think for a second about football tackles. Tackling someone is an act of violence. Now imagine there is someone walking with their headphones on. They are about to get run over by a car. You yell out to them, but they don't hear you. You have enough time to run up and tackle him out of the way. What is the moral choice?

Do you let people die in order to remain ideologically pure in your desire for nonviolence?
Or do you initiate violence for a greater good and save lives?

I could explain it to you, like I have in previous posts, and you still wouldn't get it, so I'm not going to repeat myself but for one word.

Initiate.

User avatar
mmmcannibalism
Posts: 2150
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 6:16 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby mmmcannibalism » Sat May 22, 2010 4:01 pm UTC

Think for a second about football tackles. Tackling someone is an act of violence. Now imagine there is someone walking with their headphones on. They are about to get run over by a car. You yell out to them, but they don't hear you. You have enough time to run up and tackle him out of the way. What is the moral choice?

Do you let people die in order to remain ideologically pure in your desire for nonviolence?
Or do you initiate violence for a greater good and save lives?


Your equivocator is showing.

Tackling someone is a different form of violence then mugging them.
Izawwlgood wrote:I for one would happily live on an island as a fuzzy seal-human.

Oregonaut wrote:Damn fetuses and their terroist plots.

User avatar
Charlie!
Posts: 2035
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Charlie! » Sat May 22, 2010 8:15 pm UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Tackling someone is an act of violence. Now imagine there is someone walking with their headphones on. They are about to get run over by a car. You yell out to them, but they don't hear you. You have enough time to run up and tackle him out of the way. What is the moral choice?

Do you let people die in order to remain ideologically pure in your desire for nonviolence?
Or do you initiate violence for a greater good and save lives?


Your equivocator is showing.

Tackling someone is a different form of violence then mugging them.

The problem is when you start making absolute statements like "never initiate violence" or "the ends never justify the means," it takes away that distinction that you (and common sense) say should be there. That is, I believe, what he was trying to illustrate.
Some people tell me I laugh too much. To them I say, "ha ha ha!"

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby nitePhyyre » Sun May 23, 2010 11:34 am UTC

mmmcannibalism wrote:
Think for a second about football tackles. Tackling someone is an act of violence. Now imagine there is someone walking with their headphones on. They are about to get run over by a car. You yell out to them, but they don't hear you. You have enough time to run up and tackle him out of the way. What is the moral choice?

Do you let people die in order to remain ideologically pure in your desire for nonviolence?
Or do you initiate violence for a greater good and save lives?


Your equivocator is showing.

Tackling someone is a different form of violence then mugging them.

That is the point. It isn't the act of initiating violence doesn't determine it's morality. There are more factors. Snapshot doesn't seem to understand this.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Mon May 24, 2010 2:08 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Nope! Each person participates in civilization because they think it is better for them.

I think here you are presuming rational human behavior, and that this is a large and fundamental flaw in your argument that makes the rest of it not follow.

snapshot182 wrote:I really could care less if you think violence is useful. The fact is, violence doesn't make you right, doesn't make you moral, it is a philosophically invalid position to hold.


Doesn't this claim presuppose objective morality?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon May 24, 2010 5:33 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Nope! Each person participates in civilization because they think it is better for them.

I think here you are presuming rational human behavior, and that this is a large and fundamental flaw in your argument that makes the rest of it not follow.

Uhh, no. The actual motive for joining society can be rational or not. That has absolutely no consequence that the natural state for human kind is hunters and gatherers.
This is an important fact to remember because when you say:
I think a good test for if you have a good utility metric is that, if you can freely adjust the source of the metric, you win. In this case, since our utility metric is one over civilization, free control of it means you should win at civilization.
It assumes civilization exists. It should be more along the lines of:
In this case, since our utility metric is one over Individuals, free control of it means you should win at being a human being.

Hell, you say it yourself.
free control over the amount of resources we control, makes us god-people
Even by your metric, the main goal is to perfect individuals.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Mon May 24, 2010 6:58 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:It assumes civilization exists. It should be more along the lines of:

Of course it assumes civilization exists. The concept of utility here is to be used in social environments, for discussion between individuals regarding relative utility.

And frankly, individual utility metrics tend not to facilitate the creation of civilization in the first place, so they wouldn't be so useful even if we tried.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Tue May 25, 2010 4:25 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I really could care less if you think violence is useful. The fact is, violence doesn't make you right, doesn't make you moral, it is a philosophically invalid position to hold.


Doesn't this claim presuppose objective morality?

Not necessarily. It doesn't rule it out.

What I'm saying in response to your claim is that, whether or not you choose to use violence, and whether or not there is an objective morality, violence is still not an argument or a basis for saying that you are correct, or that because violence exists, that is the way things ought to be.

I could argue that you were attempting to pull an ought from an is: that because there is violence which rules the world, there ought to be violence ruling the world. That attempts to cross the is-ought barrier and is, therefore, not a valid argument. No argument for the initiation of violence is ever valid for that reason. You can't say that violence ought exist outright because that violates the is-ought rule, nor can you prove an objective morality exists which states that violence ought be initiated because violence is not an argument.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Tue May 25, 2010 4:35 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I could argue that you were attempting to pull an ought from an is: that because there is violence which rules the world, there ought to be violence ruling the world. That attempts to cross the is-ought barrier and is, therefore, not a valid argument.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying presupposes objective morality.

You're presupposing, here, that violence ought to be bad, in order to claim that violence is philosophically untenable.

Given relative morality, systems can exist in which either violence is always bad, or sometimes bad, or any variation.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Tue May 25, 2010 4:58 pm UTC

Charlie! wrote:
mmmcannibalism wrote:
Tackling someone is an act of violence. Now imagine there is someone walking with their headphones on. They are about to get run over by a car. You yell out to them, but they don't hear you. You have enough time to run up and tackle him out of the way. What is the moral choice?

Do you let people die in order to remain ideologically pure in your desire for nonviolence?
Or do you initiate violence for a greater good and save lives?


Your equivocator is showing.

Tackling someone is a different form of violence then mugging them.

The problem is when you start making absolute statements like "never initiate violence" or "the ends never justify the means," it takes away that distinction that you (and common sense) say should be there. That is, I believe, what he was trying to illustrate.

When I say, "Never initiate violence," I'm inferring that rule from the fact that a statement such as, "It's OK to initiate violence," contradicts the premises required to make that statement, such as the principle of self-ownership.

There are myriad premises and implications injected into every single statement. You can't isolate a statement such as, "The ends never justify the means," and attempt to analyze it on it's own. You have to have a definition of morality that doesn't contradict that statement; the definition of morality has to be defined in such a way that you do not contradict yourself when speaking a moral statement.

An example of an obvious invalid moral argument would be something like, "You shouldn't put forth moral arguments." This creates a contradiction, since the very act of putting forth a moral argument is required in order to make the statement. This fact also helps realize the other fact that the content of the proposition must include the proposition (i.e. that act of proposing). It's akin to proposing a paradox such as "This statement is a lie."

There is a methodology for determining whether or not a moral statement is valid or invalid. It's the methodology that is objective since we're analyzing logical statements that can be determined to be in contradiction with one another and with the reality of the circumstance of the person proposing the argument (the content of the proposition and the proposition, itself, respectively).

Bottom line: does the statement remain consistent from first principled reasoning; if it does, then prove it through first principle reasoning. Since the principle of self-ownership is something that cannot be denied without affirming it; and we build up from there to create structure, or we work backwards to there to analyze the argument--either way works. This is how we come to objective conclusions about morality. I'm anticipating your next response, and I'll stop here for brevity's sake.
Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I could argue that you were attempting to pull an ought from an is: that because there is violence which rules the world, there ought to be violence ruling the world. That attempts to cross the is-ought barrier and is, therefore, not a valid argument.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying presupposes objective morality.

You're presupposing, here, that violence ought to be bad, in order to claim that violence is philosophically untenable.

Given relative morality, systems can exist in which either violence is always bad, or sometimes bad, or any variation.
I'm saying you ought not initiate violence because the proposition, "The initiation of violence is OK," is invalid.

I'm not saying that an act ought be wrong. An act, defined, can be determined to be wrong or not. I can't say that anything ought be wrong. That would be putting forth opinion.

So essentially what I'm saying is that, "You shouldn't initiate violence." We can analyze that statement, break it down, and I can show you why that displays consistent moral reasoning, but I think it's more important to ask this question:

If what you say is true, ought I believe it?

Indon wrote:Given relative morality, systems can exist in which either violence is always bad, or sometimes bad, or any variation.

Sorry to double post, but I must comment on the use of the phrase "relative morality."

To say that morality is relative or subjective (it doesn't matter in this sense) is the exact same thing as saying that morality doesn't exist. If there is no objective standard for morality, then it's all just opinion. You can say that the collective opinion of a people colloquially amounts to a relative morality, but objectively, to say that morality is relative is to say that it does not exist.

The reason we use terms like relative and subjective when describing morality is because we have a sense of what morality should be and how it ought be defined, but since we can't objectively define what is moral, we have to use qualifiers.

So you can't say one act is right in one culture and wrong in another culture without first implying that, above all, the moral opinions are just that--they are nothing but opinions; they are not based in logic or empirical reality--since a contradictory, objective morality logically cannot exist. Not only do they have little to no objective substance or reasoning, in cultures with governments, many of these so-called "morals" are also defended with violence, which does nothing to prove that they are objective. All the violence does is reinforce the opinion, not prove it correct.

Double posting is bad and you should feel bad -- really, really bad because you're making a habit of it. Be sure you've read (and continue to follow ) both the forum and SB section rules. Next (chronological) occurrence I find, I just going to delete.

-Az

EDIT: Holy fuck, it was a triple post.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Tue May 25, 2010 10:32 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:So you can't say one act is right in one culture and wrong in another culture without first implying that, above all, the moral opinions are just that--they are nothing but opinions; they are not based in logic or empirical reality--since a contradictory, objective morality logically cannot exist.
Repeating a position does nothing to refute it. Before we can even discuss the problem of objectively proving a morality is correct, we have to answer the question: What does it mean for a moral rule to be objectively correct?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Tue May 25, 2010 10:44 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:So you can't say one act is right in one culture and wrong in another culture without first implying that, above all, the moral opinions are just that--they are nothing but opinions; they are not based in logic or empirical reality--since a contradictory, objective morality logically cannot exist.
Repeating a position does nothing to refute it. Before we can even discuss the problem of objectively proving a morality is correct, we have to answer the question: What does it mean for a moral rule to be objectively correct?

First and foremost, the rule must apply to all people at all places at all times.

In other words, if it's good for one, it's good for all. If it's bad for one, it's bad for all.

If this does not apply to the moral rule which you have assigned, then it can be nothing but mere opinion (like a flavor of ice-cream or a preference of action). It doesn't matter, yet, whether it's morally correct, it must adhere to these guidelines, otherwise, there's no way it can be considered objective.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Tue May 25, 2010 10:48 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:First and foremost, the rule must apply to all people at all places at all times.
So, if alcohol damages my mental development while I'm a child, I shouldn't drink it once my mind is developed?

snapshot182 wrote:If this does not apply to the moral rule which you have assigned, then it can be nothing but mere opinion (like a flavor of ice-cream or a preference of action). It doesn't matter, yet, whether it's morally correct, it must adhere to these guidelines, otherwise, there's no way it can be considered objective.
Moral questions are specific: "what action should I take in this circumstance?" or "how should I feel about myself as a person?"
In what sense are answers to those questions objective?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Wed May 26, 2010 2:43 am UTC

Vaniver wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:First and foremost, the rule must apply to all people at all places at all times.
So, if alcohol damages my mental development while I'm a child, I shouldn't drink it once my mind is developed?

snapshot182 wrote:If this does not apply to the moral rule which you have assigned, then it can be nothing but mere opinion (like a flavor of ice-cream or a preference of action). It doesn't matter, yet, whether it's morally correct, it must adhere to these guidelines, otherwise, there's no way it can be considered objective.
Moral questions are specific: "what action should I take in this circumstance?" or "how should I feel about myself as a person?"
In what sense are answers to those questions objective?

I don't accept that we can say morals are specific to the circumstance. Hindsight is 20/20. It's so easy to say, "I should've done this," or "should've done that." We can't apply ex-post facto reasoning to actions in the past when morality deals with what we ought (not) do in the future.

[It's like if your friend says, "You shouldn't have done that," it's like, "Where were you 5 minutes ago?!"]

That's why we can't apply morality to situations, but we can apply them to moral arguments which refer to actions. We can apply them to statements which state particular actions ought or ought not be engaged in. It works with things like, "You shouldn't steal," or, "Murder is wrong." You can't state, without contradiction, that stealing and murder are OK, and remain logically consistent, otherwise you're literally saying it's good to murder and steal from you, which is really saying you prefer to be murdered stolen from, which is suicide and charity respectively--so the whole thing makes no sense; suicide and murder are practically opposites (except for the dying aspect), so are charity and stealing.

The question about "How should I feel about myself as a person," I don't believe belongs in the realm of morality, though an objectivist may disagree. Morality deals with two or more people and how we should or shouldn't treat each other. Self-ownership doesn't really come into question when you're the only one capable of being taken against you're own will. And since we can't say animals have any preference for truth, we can't say they ought to agree with our moral reasoning. We can say, "You ought to agree with my moral reasoning," however, to a person who prefers truth over falsehood. That's how we can say that morality obliges people to act a certain way. If someone prefers the truth, then one ought not deny the truth. If a person acts in discordance with a valid moral rule, that person is behaving immorally.

Anyway, fire away. My ideas are discordant but I do believe I'm pulling them from a solid framework.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Vaniver » Wed May 26, 2010 4:04 am UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I don't accept that we can say morals are specific to the circumstance. Hindsight is 20/20. It's so easy to say, "I should've done this," or "should've done that." We can't apply ex-post facto reasoning to actions in the past when morality deals with what we ought (not) do in the future.
But objective verification requires the past- we have to do something and get back what we expect.

snapshot182 wrote:Morality deals with two or more people and how we should or shouldn't treat each other.
I can see that if you consider 'ethics' something distinct which governs how you behave, but the primary carrots and sticks associated with morality is how you see yourself. That's what makes it a worthwhile addition to laws and etiquette.

snapshot182 wrote:That's why we can't apply morality to situations, but we can apply them to moral arguments which refer to actions.
But what is life but a series of situations? How can I determine my moral duty about how to treat another person unless I know the situation that the two of us are in?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Wed May 26, 2010 5:00 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I don't accept that we can say morals are specific to the circumstance. Hindsight is 20/20. It's so easy to say, "I should've done this," or "should've done that." We can't apply ex-post facto reasoning to actions in the past when morality deals with what we ought (not) do in the future.
But objective verification requires the past- we have to do something and get back what we expect.
Objective verification requires applying reason to our principles. Our principles include our actions, and we can describe our actions with our words. We know what actions do and what effects they have. This is already set in stone. Initiating violence prevents someone from acting freely; we know this. However, we can't say whether or not someone ought/not initiate violence from simply knowing this. Therefore, we have to analyze the ought statements to see if we are applying our moral reasoning consistently throughout.

Looking back upon a situation, we can see who did what by going back to basics and asking, "Who initiated it/Who did it belong to/was there consent?" We can ask these questions if we have moral principles upon which we can rely. If we don't have principles in the first place, then ex-post facto reasoning is just that--it's trying to say, "You ought not have done that based on what we know now." We can't expect people to be able to predict the future.

snapshot182 wrote:Morality deals with two or more people and how we should or shouldn't treat each other.
I can see that if you consider 'ethics' something distinct which governs how you behave, but the primary carrots and sticks associated with morality is how you see yourself. That's what makes it a worthwhile addition to laws and etiquette.
Morality comes before laws. I don't like discussing morality qua law because I often--almost always--make the distinction that the application of law defies an objective morality. And etiquette really depends on preferences. If someone doesn't like slurping and you do it, they don't have to associate with you or they can scold you, while both of you still remain your ability to slurp and to scold. In cases of etiquette, people still maintain the capacity for the action, and a willful choosing of the appropriate etiquette--whether to be offended at the response or to conform to the etiquette--is permitted via liberty.

But I still cannot see how basic morality concerns how you should think about yourself. I think, in general, that is what philosophy is geared toward. If you are concerned with how you perceive yourself, then you should be interested in honesty, but honesty is not obligatory outright. It requires a willingness to be introspective and want to change. Here, a choice has to be made whether to become a good person, to see whether or not you wish to engage in such things. Since there are no objective oughts in reality, no one can say, "You should be honest and compassionate and [etc]...," With morality, though, it's different. When you put forth a truth claim, the ought of accepting the truth is embedded in the claim. Why put forth a truth claim unless you feel that one ought accept it? Remember the saying, "You can't get an ought from an is"? Well, you just did. You ought not get an ought from an is, is what that saying really means. So the ought is embedded in the claim. Anyone who has a preference for truth has already committed to accepting oughts. If you don't have a preference for truth, then you are not obliged to accept any ought claim; but then you can't make any truth claims, any moral claims, nothing. So the very act of putting forth truth statements obligates you to the truth and to moral consistency in your arguments. That's how you get around, "You can't get an ought from an is." (Hope that answered your question while offering more insight.)

snapshot182 wrote:That's why we can't apply morality to situations, but we can apply them to moral arguments which refer to actions.
But what is life but a series of situations? How can I determine my moral duty about how to treat another person unless I know the situation that the two of us are in?
Life is a series of situations, indeed. But moral arguments are moral arguments. They are timeless. We can go back and forth all-day about what we should have done. We can forgive, we can get angry, we can arbitrate, we can defend. But what we can't do is say, "It's OK for me to initiate violence, steal, rape, defraud, etc." That would be illogical. How we deal with the fact that, "It's not OK to steal," is up to us. How we interpret that statement, is up to us. We're flexible. Sometimes, we see that it's better to just let things go. But knowing the truth, knowing that something is wrong, rather than being wishy-washy and relative and a pushover, in my opinion, is infinitely preferable.

That's just me. My pretension would say, "You don't have to be consistent in your moral reasoning. You'll just be inconsistent. If you want to be morally correct, then your moral reasoning ought be consistent." But my simple, curious self just says:

Why wouldn't morality need to be consistent throughout? If morality is objective, shouldn't it need to be universal? Shouldn't it need to be logical, applying to everyone? Shouldn't it not be up to perception of situation, up to who is deciding the consequences, what language we speak or what religion we are, but rather, how logical and empirical we are?

If it shouldn't, then there should be some methodology for determining the truthfulness and consistency of moral statements and a mechanism for deconstructing moral arguments.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Thu May 27, 2010 12:38 pm UTC

Thanks to snapshot for shooting me this when the forum (with the assistance of its' resident post monster) ate it so I didn't have to rewrite it.

snapshot182 wrote:If what you say is true, ought I believe it?


Well, believing true things, as opposed to believing untrue things, allow you to take actions that generally better match your intent for the actions. So it's rather sensible.

snapshot182 wrote:Sorry to double post, but I must comment on the use of the phrase "relative morality."

To say that morality is relative or subjective (it doesn't matter in this sense) is the exact same thing as saying that morality doesn't exist. If there is no objective standard for morality, then it's all just opinion. You can say that the collective opinion of a people colloquially amounts to a relative morality, but objectively, to say that morality is relative is to say that it does not exist.

See, you're presupposing objective morality. In fact, it seems that here you're claiming that the very definition of morality is objective.

In practice, morality is a series of cultural 'rules' that the culture imposes upon itself. Different cultures have different moral systems. Here, you're claiming that there is one true moral system - your "how it ought be" - and that it conforms with your opinions.

Do you see now how your supposition is being used as the foundation of your argument?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Thu May 27, 2010 4:10 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:If what you say is true, ought I believe it?


Well, believing true things, as opposed to believing untrue things, allow you to take actions that generally better match your intent for the actions. So it's rather sensible.
I can stop being enigmatic whenever you ask but: why be sensible?

snapshot182 wrote:Sorry to double post, but I must comment on the use of the phrase "relative morality."

To say that morality is relative or subjective (it doesn't matter in this sense) is the exact same thing as saying that morality doesn't exist. If there is no objective standard for morality, then it's all just opinion. You can say that the collective opinion of a people colloquially amounts to a relative morality, but objectively, to say that morality is relative is to say that it does not exist.

See, you're presupposing objective morality. In fact, it seems that here you're claiming that the very definition of morality is objective.

In practice, morality is a series of cultural 'rules' that the culture imposes upon itself. Different cultures have different moral systems. Here, you're claiming that there is one true moral system - your "how it ought be" - and that it conforms with your opinions.

Do you see now how your supposition is being used as the foundation of your argument?
The use of any moral argument presupposes that it is objective. If it's all subjective then so what? What you ought do is all just opinion anyway. That is what I am pointing out. If you're going to say something is right or wrong, then you're saying it's universally, objectively wrong. And if that's the case, then you have to prove it. If it's not the case, then you're using the term "morality" dishonestly or, more appropriately, inaccurately.

What it is that subjective/relative morality does, is say, "This is wrong because we/group/society say so." This is a contradiction. If there's no objective definition of what is wrong, then it's not wrong. To say something is relatively/subjectively immoral is simply to say, "I disapprove." But so what? If I approve and you disapprove, who has the last word? In most societies, it typically comes down to who is the strongest and/or most powerful and violent (i.e. the government). But just because the government can enforce it's own version of morality (objective or relative), does not make it objective or true. Thus, for anyone without an objective morality from which to reference, to say that anything is right or wrong--in essence, to utilize the definition of morality--is in contradiction with themselves.

What I'm doing is using objective logic to state this. If you don't have an objective definition of right or wrong, then to say morality is relative or subjective is immediately contradictory. It doesn't mean anything. It's just another way of saying, "Morality doesn't exist." It's like saying that physics is relative and is different from person to person or society to society. You have an opinion, or a lot of people have an opinion, on what people ought do. That doesn't make anything the right or the wrong thing to do except by people's opinions/preferences. But, again, so what? What good is the use of the term "morality" if it doesn't express anything objective and whereby contradictory morals can both be valid? If both me and you can disagree on what is moral, be considered both right and wrong depending on who's listening (including ourselves), and still have valid moral arguments, that is a completely useless philosophical endeavor, with contradiction, without meaning.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Thu May 27, 2010 4:35 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I can stop being enigmatic whenever you ask but: why be sensible?

Well, if you act unsensibly long enough, people will stop taking you seriously. Also, you may eventually be kicked out of the SB forum for not debating, well, seriously enough.

snapshot182 wrote:The use of any moral argument presupposes that it is objective. If it's all subjective then so what? What you ought do is all just opinion anyway.

Yes, it's us conveying our views on optimal behavior with each other, discussing our values, and so forth. That's only worthless, as you seem to be implying, when someone lacks respect for another's opinions.

The very fact that individuals discuss subjective morality means that it's possible to have a discussion about subjective morals. That you don't think it makes sense, doesn't mean that it's not possible, and in fact done fairly regularly.

snapshot182 wrote:What it is that subjective/relative morality does, is say, "This is wrong because we/group/society say so." This is a contradiction. If there's no objective definition of what is wrong, then it's not wrong.

There's no contradiction, your definition of "wrong" is just making the same presupposition. In a subjective moral system "Wrong" means "against what the society dictates", which makes your statement there tautological.

Nor does it usually mean "I disapprove". It generally says, "We disapprove, and will probably do something about it if you do it."

In this sense, "Murder is wrong" means "If you murder someone we will collectively punish you."

snapshot182 wrote:What I'm doing is using objective logic to state this.

I think your logic is just wrong. You're continuing to presuppose objective morality by defining morality as something that can only be objective.

I'm not saying that morality absoultely can not be objective. I'm just saying that you need a better argument than "Because it is, duh!", which is what predefining the concept of morality as being objective before you talk about it (while everyone else isn't doing that) basically boils down to.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Thu May 27, 2010 5:15 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I can stop being enigmatic whenever you ask but: why be sensible?

Well, if you act unsensibly long enough, people will stop taking you seriously. Also, you may eventually be kicked out of the SB forum for not debating, well, seriously enough.
The question still remains though. So what? The answer is simple: because I want to. Because I want to be sensible. Because I prefer the truth. Because I think it's in my best interest and I like that. That's all it comes down to. You can shell out consequences all you want, but if I don't care about the consequences, I'm not bound or obligated to behave a certain way. The point is, when someone puts forth any truth claim, moral or not, they are simultaneously expressing a preference for truth which obligates them to accept the truth. Again, there is no biological or physical imperative to accept the truth and not be hypocritical; the fact that a truth claim has been put forth presupposes that you want to know the truth and will accept it. That is where the "ought" lies: in preference expressed through action.

snapshot182 wrote:The use of any moral argument presupposes that it is objective. If it's all subjective then so what? What you ought do is all just opinion anyway.

Yes, it's us conveying our views on optimal behavior with each other, discussing our values, and so forth. That's only worthless, as you seem to be implying, when someone lacks respect for another's opinions.

The very fact that individuals discuss subjective morality means that it's possible to have a discussion about subjective morals. That you don't think it makes sense, doesn't mean that it's not possible, and in fact done fairly regularly.
Let's look at it from the other angle.

Let's say I disrespect your opinion. Does that mean it's OK for you to shoot me, or jail me, or steal from me? Let's say you don't make sense to me and I don't agree with your opinions (which is all subjective morality is), then what? Can you leave me be? Or do you feel compelled to force your opinions upon me? I have no problem with you holding your own opinions. Will you let me hold mine?

snapshot182 wrote:What it is that subjective/relative morality does, is say, "This is wrong because we/group/society say so." This is a contradiction. If there's no objective definition of what is wrong, then it's not wrong.

There's no contradiction, your definition of "wrong" is just making the same presupposition. In a subjective moral system "Wrong" means "against what the society dictates", which makes your statement there tautological.

Nor does it usually mean "I disapprove". It generally says, "We disapprove, and will probably do something about it if you do it."

In this sense, "Murder is wrong" means "If you murder someone we will collectively punish you."
So what you're saying is that [your] [subjective] morality is just a threat. It's "You better do this or else." That's what I was saying that most people thought it was. And that's why I brought up governments. That's all governments do. They initiate violence against innocent people with threats and with physical violence in order to get their way. It doesn't matter if morality is objective or not to them. We will be subject to their violence--and not only is there little that anyone can do about it, people actually support this.

What you're saying is that your [government's] [subjective] moral imperatives applies to those innocent people, but it doesn't apply to the people in government who threaten and use physical force. That's inconsistent moral reasoning. What you (or rather, someone who supports government in general) are saying is that it's OK to back up our moral opinions with violence, because there's nothing that anyone can do about it. People can't live peaceful lives free from the violence of government. But it's not OK for anyone to disagree with the government and be left to their own devices. Government won't allow that. That's setting up different moral rules for different people. This is what I mean about inconsistent moral reasoning.

snapshot182 wrote:What I'm doing is using objective logic to state this.

I think your logic is just wrong. You're continuing to presuppose objective morality by defining morality as something that can only be objective.

I'm not saying that morality absoultely can not be objective. I'm just saying that you need a better argument than "Because it is, duh!", which is what predefining the concept of morality as being objective before you talk about it (while everyone else isn't doing that) basically boils down to.
[/quote]Morality has to be objective otherwise it's just opinion. We might as well say, "This vanilla ice cream is moral," because it means virtually the same thing as saying, "This vanilla ice cream is good."

If there is no objective definition of "good," and morality deals with what is "good," then morality is just preference and opinion, which means it's impossible to discuss morality outside of people's sensibilities. The only way you can talk about morality in a meaningful way is if you talk about it as though it were objective. Otherwise, it doesn't make sense. I'm not saying morality is objective because it has to be objective. I'm saying you're using the word morality in a way that contradicts your own manner of using it--you're using it as though it were objective and as though I ought agree with you on it's use. With subjective morality, there is no ought. I'm explaining how to use the term in a non-contradictory manner. I'm not using it to describe sensibilities or to describe what Billy Bob or the German's think I ought to do. I'm using in a way that will describe (or rather prescribe) what everyone ought/not do, regardless of opinion or circumstance, and regardless of my opinion as well. What is moral is not up to me anymore than it is up to an entire society. If we want to talk about folkways and mores, cool. If we want to just say morality is a threat upon your life, fine. But rather than use the term "morality," which is really only meaningful when discussed as though it were objective, let's unveil the threats and unveil the hostility and leave the term "morality" out of this because nothing about what people "ought" do has anything to do with relative or subjective morality.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Thu May 27, 2010 5:40 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:The question still remains though. So what? The answer is simple: because I want to. Because I want to be sensible. Because I prefer the truth. Because I think it's in my best interest and I like that. That's all it comes down to. You can shell out consequences all you want, but if I don't care about the consequences, I'm not bound or obligated to behave a certain way.

Okay.

snapshot182 wrote:The point is, when someone puts forth any truth claim, moral or not, they are simultaneously expressing a preference for truth which obligates them to accept the truth.

You just finished implying (and about you, saying) people aren't bound or obligated to do that.

snapshot182 wrote:That is where the "ought" lies: in preference expressed through action.

I don't see how that's any distinct from opinion.

snapshot182 wrote:Let's say I disrespect your opinion. Does that mean it's OK for you to shoot me, or jail me, or steal from me?

In our moral system, generally not. You generally need to act upon such disrespect to merit repercussions.

Subjective morality includes people imposing their opinions on each other, however, and explains it not as something good or bad but as something that happens and has happened.

snapshot182 wrote:I have no problem with you holding your own opinions. Will you let me hold mine?

And you're welcome to your opinion on that. :D

snapshot182 wrote:So what you're saying is that [your] [subjective] morality is just a threat. It's "You better do this or else."

All subjective morality, and many kinds of objective morality, is a threat as you describe. Without an enforcement mechanism, moral claims are moot.

snapshot182 wrote:What you're saying is that your [government's] [subjective] moral imperatives applies to those innocent people, but it doesn't apply to the people in government who threaten and use physical force.

Our moral system applies recursively to our government. This is called "the rule of law" - though at this point, the line blurs a bit between this and ethics.

snapshot182 wrote:People can't live peaceful lives free from the violence of government.

No enforced moral system exists independently from violence, because violence is necessary to impose punishment upon people violating a moral system.

The moment you make "Murder is wrong" mean anything, there's violence, or a threat of violence.

snapshot182 wrote:But it's not OK for anyone to disagree with the government and be left to their own devices. Government won't allow that. That's setting up different moral rules for different people. This is what I mean about inconsistent moral reasoning.

It's not inconsistent - morality is imposed by governments, and governments don't allow people to not be imposed upon because it's imposition.

snapshot182 wrote:Morality has to be objective otherwise it's just opinion.

It's rather more than just opinion - it's fairly important and significant opinion!

snapshot182 wrote:We might as well say, "This vanilla ice cream is moral," because it means virtually the same thing as saying, "This vanilla ice cream is good."

If society punished people for having chocolate ice cream, then yeah, vanilla ice cream would be more moral than chocolate. Ditto, I suppose, if society rewarded people for having the vanilla.

snapshot182 wrote:If there is no objective definition of "good," and morality deals with what is "good," then morality is just preference and opinion, which means it's impossible to discuss morality outside of people's sensibilities.

No, it's possible to hypothesize objective morality even if morality is subjective, such as from a source external to reality, simply by claiming that a subjective moral system is actually an objective one.

snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying you're using the word morality in a way that contradicts your own manner of using it--you're using it as though it were objective and as though I ought agree with you on it's use.

No, I'm not. Unlike you, I am not presupposing the objectivity of morality, nor do I need to at any point in a moral discussion.

In summary: You want morality to be objective, but your argument for it is logically fallacious (morality is objective because morality is objective, or begging the question) so I, at least, am never going to buy it, and if you keep working with fallacious arguments and not acknowledging the problems with them, you'll probably eventually get kicked out of SB and then obviously this subpoint will have terminated.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Thu May 27, 2010 6:50 pm UTC

I don't want to get into a snipe war. I'll respond to this.
snapshot182 wrote:The point is, when someone puts forth any truth claim, moral or not, they are simultaneously expressing a preference for truth which obligates them to accept the truth.

You just finished implying (and about you, saying) people aren't bound or obligated to do that.
I stated that people obligate themselves. There is nothing in objective reality that obligates you to anything. I.E. You can't get an ought from an is. However, by me stating any truth statement, I'm showing a preference for truth, which obligates me to accept it. Therefore, I obligate myself to the morality which I put forth. I'm stating that there is an objective truth, and that one ought believe it if one prefers truth too (and that includes me).

So there's nothing outside of preference that obligates one's self to anything. Prefer truth, don't prefer truth, whatever. But once you make any truth statement, you're simultaneously obligating yourself to accept truth. You ought accept truth if you prefer truth--which is empirically verifiable that you do through the making of truth statements.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Fri May 28, 2010 1:16 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I stated that people obligate themselves. There is nothing in objective reality that obligates you to anything. I.E. You can't get an ought from an is. However, by me stating any truth statement, I'm showing a preference for truth, which obligates me to accept it. Therefore, I obligate myself to the morality which I put forth. I'm stating that there is an objective truth, and that one ought believe it if one prefers truth too (and that includes me).

So there's nothing outside of preference that obligates one's self to anything. Prefer truth, don't prefer truth, whatever. But once you make any truth statement, you're simultaneously obligating yourself to accept truth. You ought accept truth if you prefer truth--which is empirically verifiable that you do through the making of truth statements.


If reality carries no obligations, then not only are you arguing that morality must be objective, but it sounds like you're arguing that said morality can not exist.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Fri May 28, 2010 3:36 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I stated that people obligate themselves. There is nothing in objective reality that obligates you to anything. I.E. You can't get an ought from an is. However, by me stating any truth statement, I'm showing a preference for truth, which obligates me to accept it. Therefore, I obligate myself to the morality which I put forth. I'm stating that there is an objective truth, and that one ought believe it if one prefers truth too (and that includes me).

So there's nothing outside of preference that obligates one's self to anything. Prefer truth, don't prefer truth, whatever. But once you make any truth statement, you're simultaneously obligating yourself to accept truth. You ought accept truth if you prefer truth--which is empirically verifiable that you do through the making of truth statements.


If reality carries no obligations, then not only are you arguing that morality must be objective, but it sounds like you're arguing that said morality can not exist.

Morality doesn't exist in physical reality. However, you obligate yourself to a standard when you expect that standard from others. Self-obligation is different from imposed obligation. Truth, logic, science...they are just abstract principles that we use to define reality. But in that sense, they are objective because we can use them to discover things about the objective world...as opposed to something like astrology and numerology and religion. Through self-obligation to the truth comes certain abilities and privileges, like the ability to tell someone that they are objectively wrong or inaccurate in their reasoning, and the privilege to use that knowledge of truth and falsehood against others and their erroneous or contradictory statements.

When someone puts forth a claim of morality--like, for example, you ought do what the government says or you're a bad person--under a relative/subjective morality, why can't someone just say, "No I'm not?" and be left alone? Because the person stating that I ought do what the government says doesn't care about the truth or falsehood of their claim; they only care about getting me to do what they want. The statement they give could really be anything--Give me your wallet or you're a bad person--and the moral content would be exactly the same. I'm not a bad person just because someone says I am, and I don't have to do anything unless I'm forced to do something or I want to do something and force myself to do it.

And that's the whole point. With a subjective/relative morality, anything that the government says I ought to do, or anything that society says I ought to do is meaningless in any moral sense, because they don't care about the truth or falsehood of their claims. They only care about the consequences of people not following their commands. That's not morality. A bully isn't moral because he demands something of his victims and threatens them to submit. The government is no more moral because they do exactly the same thing. You can say that there are consequences to not doing what the government says, but those consequences are mostly imposed by the government itself. It's like the bully saying, "It's your fault that I'm hitting you right now; you should've given me your lunch money." It's not my fault that the bully is violent and gets what he wants. It makes no sense that it's my fault. And it's not my fault that the government threatens violence upon me in order for those in government to get what they want. They are imposing themselves upon me. If I don't want a government, there may be consequences, yes, but so be it. Just because I could hurt myself doesn't give other people the privilege to hurt me or threaten me. The government just doles out violence for its own collective desires, and reasons after the fact how it's for my own good, or society's own good. It makes no logical sense. It's just violence. It's initiating violence. No reasoning comes before it. You can't reason that you ought to initiate violence. It's contradictory. You can initiate violence to quell your own anxieties about what might happen to you if you don't (chaos, anarchy, madness in the streets!), but that doesn't make "Initiating violence is acceptable" a moral rule because you're fighting against it at the very same time. Government initiates violence in order to stop the initiation of violence against itself--a complete contradiction in moral terms.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Fri May 28, 2010 6:32 pm UTC

So your point is that morality does not exist, and therefore the existence of no government can be justified? Isn't no action morally justified in such an environment, making the behavior of a government no more or less justifiable than anything else?

snapshot182 wrote:With a subjective/relative morality, anything that the government says I ought to do, or anything that society says I ought to do is meaningless in any moral sense, because they don't care about the truth or falsehood of their claims. They only care about the consequences of people not following their commands.

Even an objective moral system would function exactly this way - for instance, in some religions God imposes upon reality an absolute moral code, and then enforces it just as you describe here.

snapshot182 wrote:The government just doles out violence for its own collective desires, and reasons after the fact how it's for my own good, or society's own good. It makes no logical sense.

Except it does make sense - a collective needs to be capable of enforcing its' own rules, or else the collective isn't going to function. So no, it's not just violence without reasoning.

snapshot182 wrote:Government initiates violence in order to stop the initiation of violence against itself--a complete contradiction in moral terms.

No, it's not. Governments exist to moderate and regulate the use of violence - not to ensure absolute passivity.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Fri May 28, 2010 7:23 pm UTC

Indon wrote:So your point is that morality does not exist, and therefore the existence of no government can be justified? Isn't no action morally justified in such an environment, making the behavior of a government no more or less justifiable than anything else?
I'm saying that it doesn't matter if morality exists, government is still unjustifiable.

However, I'm saying that an objective morality does exist, just not in any way that's been thought of before. It requires looking objectively at ought statements to see if we can apply them universally without contradiction. However, even if we find that nothing else, no moral rules, can be considered morally objective, the fact that we cannot put forth valid, objective ought statements means that we ought not put forth such statements. When you get down to it, you can't escape objective morality. We are bound by it lest we choose a path of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty.

snapshot182 wrote:With a subjective/relative morality, anything that the government says I ought to do, or anything that society says I ought to do is meaningless in any moral sense, because they don't care about the truth or falsehood of their claims. They only care about the consequences of people not following their commands.

Even an objective moral system would function exactly this way - for instance, in some religions God imposes upon reality an absolute moral code, and then enforces it just as you describe here.
Their moral arguments would still be subject to the same universality and consistency rules as any other moral statement.

I'm not putting forth a methodology that applies only to government. I'm putting forth a methodology that applies to all moral arguments. Mainstream religion or cult, government or communal anarchy, all people and all arguments are subject to the same rules of logic.

If it was objectively moral to force people to submit, it would be logically consistent. However, forcing people to submit to a deity or to a priest makes no logical sense and defies empirical reality. You can certainly have a people claim to put forth an objective morality--just like all religions claim to do--but if they don't pass objective verification, they are just as false as any other false claim.

snapshot182 wrote:The government just doles out violence for its own collective desires, and reasons after the fact how it's for my own good, or society's own good. It makes no logical sense.

Except it does make sense - a collective needs to be capable of enforcing its' own rules, or else the collective isn't going to function. So no, it's not just violence without reasoning.
You don't need violence to do it, and you can't justify it with violence alone. Certainly a prison colony could function as well. But that's not an argument for a prison colony. If you're not worried about justifying a government philosophically, there's not much I can . Whether or not I agree with you, I'm still going to be threatened and force to pay taxes and abide by whatever rules and regulations the government comes up with. There's not much you can do about it either; you can either think that it's good or bad and live your life accordingly. If you don't care whether or not the initiation of violence is philosophically justifiable, I can't do anything about that.

snapshot182 wrote:Government initiates violence in order to stop the initiation of violence against itself--a complete contradiction in moral terms.

No, it's not. Governments exist to moderate and regulate the use of violence - not to ensure absolute passivity.
I know you're not saying that government promotes the initiation of violence between those over whom it has jurisdiction. There are laws written specifically against that. In that sense, government would absolutely love absolute passivity. However, there are reasons that government protects those who protect themselves against violence. In that sense, government would likely not want passivity from those who were being thrust upon by other citizens.

But to clarify, government certainly wants absolute passivity. It makes their job a whole lot easier. Unless you think that people would think government would become unnecessary and we then wouldn't need a government? Let me know if I've misunderstood that.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7605
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Zamfir » Fri May 28, 2010 7:35 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:However, I'm saying that an objective morality does exist, just not in any way that's been thought of before.


Given that boatlaods of very smart people have been racking their brains on the objectivity of morality for millenia without much progress, I doubt you just found something that hasn't been thought of before.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Fri May 28, 2010 8:11 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:However, I'm saying that an objective morality does exist, just not in any way that's been thought of before.


Given that boatlaods of very smart people have been racking their brains on the objectivity of morality for millenia without much progress, I doubt you just found something that hasn't been thought of before.

I didn't. Stefan Molyneux did. I'm just putting forth his idea--I didn't mean to make it sound like I thought it up. I am saying that very few people have thought of it, there's no historical precedent, and the consequences of an objective morality fly in the face of what we consider moral in today's world, which is why there's no historical precedent.

The methodology has a name; it's called universally preferable behavior. I wanted to avoid discussing the author and the book in which it was written for as long as I could so as to leave out any bias that would result.

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby nitePhyyre » Sat May 29, 2010 6:37 am UTC

snapshot182 wrote:It requires looking objectively at ought statements to see if we can apply them universally without contradiction. However, even if we find that nothing else, no moral rules, can be considered morally objective, the fact that we cannot put forth valid, objective ought statements means that we ought not put forth such statements. When you get down to it, you can't escape objective morality. We are bound by it lest we choose a path of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty.
Internal consistency =/= objectivity. There is nothing to stop people from having different views that are entirely self-consistent. Person A says: "One should not initiate violence." Person B says: "One should initiate violence." Both of these could be applied universally without contradiction. Yet they contradict each other. Therefore your moral system fails at consistency, which is pretty pathetic considering consistency is its only criteria. To make matters worse, there are some people who have no qualms with choosing a path of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. Hell some people LOVE contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. So if your only method of enforcement is that people will desire [the antonyms of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty], then not only does your philosophy fail theoretically, it fails pragmatically as well.

More to come after sleep.
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Sat May 29, 2010 9:02 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:It requires looking objectively at ought statements to see if we can apply them universally without contradiction. However, even if we find that nothing else, no moral rules, can be considered morally objective, the fact that we cannot put forth valid, objective ought statements means that we ought not put forth such statements. When you get down to it, you can't escape objective morality. We are bound by it lest we choose a path of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty.
Internal consistency =/= objectivity. There is nothing to stop people from having different views that are entirely self-consistent. Person A says: "One should not initiate violence." Person B says: "One should initiate violence." Both of these could be applied universally without contradiction. Yet they contradict each other. Therefore your moral system fails at consistency, which is pretty pathetic considering consistency is its only criteria. To make matters worse, there are some people who have no qualms with choosing a path of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. Hell some people LOVE contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. So if your only method of enforcement is that people will desire [the antonyms of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty], then not only does your philosophy fail theoretically, it fails pragmatically as well.

More to come after sleep.
More to come after the weekend, dude! Let's get back to this on Tuesday. Right now, we party.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Tue Jun 01, 2010 1:33 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying that it doesn't matter if morality exists, government is still unjustifiable.

I think you're applying a personal moral standard to everyone else, and that your personal moral standard doesn't like government.

snapshot182 wrote:However, I'm saying that an objective morality does exist, just not in any way that's been thought of before.

I think your standard for objective morality is a silly one. Without enforcibility, or any eye for practicality, it seems unlikely to be capable of producing a functioning society.

snapshot182 wrote:When you get down to it, you can't escape objective morality.

Yes, we totally can. We just need to stop asking absurd questions like "Is this magically correct?" and start asking sensible questions like, "Is this what works for what we want?"

snapshot182 wrote:Their moral arguments would still be subject to the same universality and consistency rules as any other moral statement.

You're applying the standards of your morality to other moral systems. I predict your results will not make sense.

snapshot182 wrote:You don't need violence to do it, and you can't justify it with violence alone.

Yes, you do. You don't enforce without force. And again, with your use of 'justify', you're talking about your pet moral system that I don't remotely care about.

snapshot182 wrote:I know you're not saying that government promotes the initiation of violence between those over whom it has jurisdiction.

Actually, it does in some circumstances, and there are laws written specifically about that - such as violence used in self-defense.

So no, government does not necessarily want absolute passivity, and I think it's a fairly silly misconception of government function to think otherwise.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:24 pm UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:It requires looking objectively at ought statements to see if we can apply them universally without contradiction. However, even if we find that nothing else, no moral rules, can be considered morally objective, the fact that we cannot put forth valid, objective ought statements means that we ought not put forth such statements. When you get down to it, you can't escape objective morality. We are bound by it lest we choose a path of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty.
Internal consistency =/= objectivity. There is nothing to stop people from having different views that are entirely self-consistent. Person A says: "One should not initiate violence." Person B says: "One should initiate violence." Both of these could be applied universally without contradiction. Yet they contradict each other. Therefore your moral system fails at consistency, which is pretty pathetic considering consistency is its only criteria. To make matters worse, there are some people who have no qualms with choosing a path of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. Hell some people LOVE contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty. So if your only method of enforcement is that people will desire [the antonyms of contradiction, hypocrisy, and dishonesty], then not only does your philosophy fail theoretically, it fails pragmatically as well.

More to come after sleep.
It's not all about internal consistency. I said previous, the content of the proposition includes the proposition (i.e. your proclaiming of the proposition). The act of arguing is just as important as the argument itself, especially since we're dealing with morality, which relates arguments to acts. The example I gave was that the statement, "It is wrong to put forth moral statements," is invalid because the very act of putting forth the statement defies its content. The external validation comes from staying consistent in argument and action.

Also, the initiation of violence as a moral rule cannot be applied consistently. You can't have two people both initiate violence upon each other. It is impossible to implement as you would constantly have some people initiating and some people receiving or responding to it.

....

No quote sniping. I'll only respond to two.
Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying that it doesn't matter if morality exists, government is still unjustifiable.

I think you're applying a personal moral standard to everyone else, and that your personal moral standard doesn't like government.
I'm saying whether or not I have a personal preference, other people's personal preferences are being thrust upon me. Violence is being initiated against me. Whether or not the initiation of violence is moral, that I am a victim of the initiation of violence is a fact.
Actually, it does in some circumstances, and there are laws written specifically about that - such as violence used in self-defense.

So no, government does not necessarily want absolute passivity, and I think it's a fairly silly misconception of government function to think otherwise.

Violence used in self-defense is not the same as an initiation of violence. It's fairly silly for you to conflate the two, especially since you, yourself, do not use them interchangeably.

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Tue Jun 01, 2010 7:43 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying whether or not I have a personal preference, other people's personal preferences are being thrust upon me.

That's how moral systems work.

snapshot182 wrote:Violence used in self-defense is not the same as an initiation of violence.

Yes it is, it's just violence initiated in self-defense. That's why self-defense is an affirmative defense.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

snapshot182
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:12 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby snapshot182 » Tue Jun 01, 2010 8:45 pm UTC

Indon wrote:
snapshot182 wrote:I'm saying whether or not I have a personal preference, other people's personal preferences are being thrust upon me.

That's how moral systems work.
What you're saying is might makes right, so the violence necessarily comes first in that line of reasoning (might causes something to be right), meaning that you cannot logically use that moral system to justify the violence--it's just violence. Otherwise, the reasoning becomes tautological. You commit a violent act. It's moral because you say so. Anyone who disagrees receives more violence. There's no reasoning. Just violence, then an attempted justification, and then more violence as a response. It's barbaric.

If that's what you call morality, I implore you to stop using that term. It's just a way to cover up what is really going on: violence, manipulation, and coercion, and the bastardization of reason by calling this violence "morality." If you have any moral or philosophical sense at all, you'll call it for what it is--violence--and not try to cover up the fact that you're promoting the use of violence.

snapshot182 wrote:Violence used in self-defense is not the same as an initiation of violence.

Yes it is, it's just violence initiated in self-defense. That's why self-defense is an affirmative defense.
A defense against what, pray tell? Why do you think self-defense qualifies as a valid defense while the violence committed against that person can be justly prosecuted?

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Wed Jun 02, 2010 2:05 pm UTC

snapshot182 wrote:What you're saying is might makes right, so the violence necessarily comes first in that line of reasoning (might causes something to be right), meaning that you cannot logically use that moral system to justify the violence--it's just violence.

No, you're wrong. Again, you are applying your personal moral standards to someone else, and the result is nonsensical.

snapshot182 wrote:If that's what you call morality, I implore you to stop using that term.

Look, your pet morality is not necessarily the objectively correct one. Deal with that.

snapshot182 wrote:A defense against what, pray tell? Why do you think self-defense qualifies as a valid defense while the violence committed against that person can be justly prosecuted?

Self-defense isn't the only exception, you know, I just used it as an example. Again, you've missed the point, apparently willfully.
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image

AtlasDrugged
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby AtlasDrugged » Wed Jun 02, 2010 3:06 pm UTC

Reading the last page of this thread has been frustrating, as snapshot correctly identifies the need for objective morality but is defending it in a very muddled way.

Some questions for Indon:

- When somebody makes a statement such as 'slavery is wrong', are they correct? What does the word 'wrong' mean in this instance?
- If another person comes along and says 'slavery is perfectly fine', are they wrong? How do you decide which of the two is right?
- Why do you link morality with the possibility of enforcement?

User avatar
Indon
Posts: 4433
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:21 pm UTC
Location: Alabama :(
Contact:

Re: Market Anarchy

Postby Indon » Wed Jun 02, 2010 5:07 pm UTC

AtlasDrugged wrote:- When somebody makes a statement such as 'slavery is wrong', are they correct? What does the word 'wrong' mean in this instance?

I would agree, and 'wrong' means something that should not be done.

AtlasDrugged wrote:- If another person comes along and says 'slavery is perfectly fine', are they wrong?

I would disagree.

AtlasDrugged wrote:How do you decide which of the two is right?

We'd argue very vehemently. If we were performing a historical reenactment of America's history, I'd shoot him.

AtlasDrugged wrote:- Why do you link morality with the possibility of enforcement?

Of what utility is an ideal that has no power to become a reality?
So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

My blog, now rarely updated.

Image


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests