|
absolem posted:I didn't make anyone do anything. I did try to make this more than a "debate me" thread, and the conversation seems to have taken an interesting turn (people are actually talking about ethics...) since I fell behind. Oh good, you're still around. I had a thought. So self-ownership is the basis of all argumentation. Part of what it means to own something is to be able to sell it. Based on my understanding of libertarian philosophy, you could sell yourself into slavery if you really had a mind to. According to your understanding of Hoppe, slavery is untenable because it leads to a contradiction in performance of some sort. I contend that banning slavery is just as untenable, because it violates this idea of self-ownership. How can you be forbidden from selling something that you rightfully own? To say that you own yourself, but can't sell yourself, is a contradiction in performance. So either you allow slavery, and the ethic collapses, or you ban slavery, and the ethic collapses. What do you think?
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah, stealing to save someone's life is moral. I've already explained my reasoning in an earlier post where I first gave my answer. Like for everything else I'm sure someone can always construct increasingly convoluted edge cases but that's the rule of thumb I go with. For the record I'm still honestly curious as to why you think either choice is immoral. I'd almost go far as to say that outside of a few very specific cases doing anything short of threats or acts of assault can be considered moral if they directly result in the saving of someone's life.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Yeah, stealing to save someone's life is moral. I've already explained my reasoning in an earlier post where I first gave my answer. Like for everything else I'm sure someone can always construct increasingly convoluted edge cases but that's the rule of thumb I go with. For the record I'm still honestly curious as to why you think either choice is immoral. Abstracting from the circumstances, stealing itself is an immoral act for reasons that you mentioned - harm to the owner of the thing stolen, harm to society, fear created, etc. IMO the circumstances don't change the moral status of the act because the negative consequences of the act don't change - the things we said made it immoral in the first place. Also, permitting that kind of conditionality makes determining the morality of theft subjective and permits self serving justifications and ambiguities. Since there are going to be contradictions and ambiguities no matter what, we might as well keep the judgements simple. Letting a person die when you could reasonably have prevented it is also immoral, imo. This isn't reasoning from any principals it's just my feeling on that particular thing. If it's reasonably within your power to stop someone from dying you ought to do so. So both choices are immoral. It's an ugly choice the hypothetical husband is faced with, but that doesn't flip the moral status of either option. Ethically, I think the guy is obligated (if he can't find a way to pay for the meds within the relevant time frame) to steal them, cure his wife, and turn himself in for the theft.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Abstracting from the circumstances, stealing itself is an immoral act for reasons that you mentioned - harm to the owner of the thing stolen, harm to society, fear created, etc. IMO the circumstances don't change the moral status of the act because the negative consequences of the act don't change - the things we said made it immoral in the first place. Also, permitting that kind of conditionality makes determining the morality of theft subjective and permits self serving justifications and ambiguities. Since there are going to be contradictions and ambiguities no matter what, we might as well keep the judgements simple. So morality exists in some kind of abstracted sense, separate from context or anything that could affect perspectives of the situation?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:Oh good, you're still around. I had a thought. To add to this, I don't think that Hoppe would say that a society that respects property rights would have no slavery. Quite the contrary, in fact; anyone without a sufficiently developed understanding of the sanctity of private property (and surely anyone who would consider selling themselves into slavery would fall into this category) is not a real person and may be traded between free people as a good. So in fact, the very act of saying "I'd like to sell myself into slavery" out loud changes you from a person into a good, disqualifying you from being compensated for your own enslavement.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
But seriously why the hell should the guy care about right or wrong and not just care about his wife not dying
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Abstracting from the circumstances, stealing itself is an immoral act for reasons that you mentioned - harm to the owner of the thing stolen, harm to society, fear created, etc. IMO the circumstances don't change the moral status of the act because the negative consequences of the act don't change - the things we said made it immoral in the first place. Also, permitting that kind of conditionality makes determining the morality of theft subjective and permits self serving justifications and ambiguities. Since there are going to be contradictions and ambiguities no matter what, we might as well keep the judgements simple. See, I understand the first part, because it's talking about actual humans and what's best for them, but that kind of conditionality, as well as "self serving justifications and ambiguities," aren't going anywhere, they'll be at play in any choices people make. So if you do away with them, you're no longer talking about human beings and your moral system becomes as relevant as the rules of chess are to planning a regicidal coup. Basically what Judakel said. As far as the negative consequences that actually matter to people, the loss of property, the attendant fear and social harm, are all less than the loss that someone would suffer if they died, or even if a loved one died, so it would be moral to prevent this loss of life. I don't think that's any more complicated than your position if the concern is to "keep the judgements simple." I don't know, I'm obviously not trained in moral philosophy. But I wouldn't turn my friend in for stealing medicine to save his wife's life. I would say that yes, the state should investigate and pursue charges against the theft, but they should also take into account the circumstances. I'd also lie to the court to provide an alibi because I wouldn't want them punished for saving someone's life. I guess I'm just more tolerant of ambiguity. A big flaming stink posted:But seriously why the hell should the guy care about right or wrong and not just care about his wife not dying I know what I'd want my spouse to do, and I know what I'd do. I guess constructing abstract moral systems has value but to be honest they're getting tossed out the window if someone I love's life is in jeopardy. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 21:48 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:But seriously why the hell should the guy care about right or wrong and not just care about his wife not dying (not challenging the politics behind it, specifically questioning the morality) What if he had to kill a security guard to get the drugs? Does he not have to care about right and wrong then?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:(not challenging the politics behind it, specifically questioning the morality) What if he had to destroy Gotham to get the drags?!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:(not challenging the politics behind it, specifically questioning the morality) depends on how much he cares about his wife i guess. honestly i think he's only going to care about morality to justify his choice after the fact. pretty much how most people use morality really
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Why don't we just go with an "Objective" system. In order to be objective, an outside observer would have to be able to come to the same conclusions every time without the need to refer to subjective constructions. Property is such a goofy and subjective concept that it could never be objectively determined without a ridiculous framework that could resolve problems like "Who owns property stolen from a group that was eliminated through genocide." I propose a truly"Objective" morality system: 1. Possession is property. 2. Might makes right. Nice and easy. So objective, so ethical.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:depends on how much he cares about his wife i guess. honestly i think he's only going to care about morality to justify his choice after the fact. And it's a lovely way to use it if it's just there to make you feel better about yourself. StashAugustine fucked around with this message at 22:04 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:See, I understand the first part, because it's talking about actual humans and what's best for them, but that kind of conditionality, as well as "self serving justifications and ambiguities," aren't going anywhere, they'll be at play in any choices people make. So if you do away with them, you're no longer talking about human beings and your moral system becomes as relevant as the rules of chess are to planning a regicidal coup. Basically what Judakel said. Here is the terrifying thing about abstracting morality completely away from context: What's the rule for what is good or bad? How did we even arrive at those particular things being bad? Without creating a categorical imperative, you're left with nonsense. Do we just go to the oracle in order to decide in some ad-hoc way? The answer we're looking for isn't just a matter that trusting one's gut can solve, since that brings with it a whole host of conflicting norms amongst peoples of the world. The very problem you think you're avoiding is the very problem you're walking right into: some sort of subjectivity. And more importantly, how does that answer the question at the heart of moral philosophy: Why is it good or bad? Without context, how do we even begin to make sense of any of this. It really is a take on morality that completely eats itself. Judakel fucked around with this message at 22:06 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:See, I understand the first part, because it's talking about actual humans and what's best for them, but that kind of conditionality, as well as "self serving justifications and ambiguities," aren't going anywhere, they'll be at play in any choices people make. So if you do away with them, you're no longer talking about human beings and your moral system becomes as relevant as the rules of chess are to planning a regicidal coup. If you keep them in it's not much of a system. The most accurate description of what we do when we make moral choices is probably something like "make a snap judgement based on whatever loyalties, emotions, and facts are most prominent in the moment. Justify this rationally later, if that seems like a thing that needs doing at that time." But if we keep the discussion on that level there's no "ought" (the "ought" is whatever each of us individually would do in the moment) and it doesn't make sense to talk about morality. We have to abstract somehow or we're stuck talking about our subjective experiences. Sharkie posted:As far as the negative consequences that actually matter to people, the loss of property, the attendant fear and social harm, are all less than the loss that someone would suffer if they died, or even if a loved one died, so it would be moral to prevent this loss of life. I don't think that's any more complicated than your position if the concern is to "keep the judgements simple." Ok. So that's a utilitarian moral system, right? What matters is the balance of harm, and in this case having some meds stolen causes less harm than saving someone's life. That's a reasonable way to look at that situation but it gets less reasonable when applied to other situations. For instance, what if instead of some meds what the wife needs is a lower spine transplant (let's imagine this is a thing). The only matching doner doesn't want to be left paralyzed and he'd probably die during surgery (though maybe not) and won't give up his spine for any price. Is it moral to force him to do it?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
A: People own themselves B: People can sell things they own to other people Therefor: People can sometimes not own themselves <head explodes> Ok again, A: People start with initial ownership of themselves B: People can sell things they own to other people Therefor: gently caress you Dad, Im not cleaning my room and you cant force me to! ...one more time A: People are granted ownership of themselves at some defined age B: People can sell things they own to other people Therefor: Seems like a pretty arbitrary definition of ownership. Lets base a whole loving system of ethics on it!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:If you keep them in it's not much of a system. The most accurate description of what we do when we make moral choices is probably something like "make a snap judgement based on whatever loyalties, emotions, and facts are most prominent in the moment. Justify this rationally later, if that seems like a thing that needs doing at that time." But if we keep the discussion on that level there's no "ought" (the "ought" is whatever each of us individually would do in the moment) and it doesn't make sense to talk about morality. We have to abstract somehow or we're stuck talking about our subjective experiences. Ok, so the less any moral system reflects "the most accurate description of what we do when we make moral choices," the less it reflects reality. Moral prescriptions have to be based in subjective experiences because that's where morality arises from, and there's no moral code floating on a higher plane that we can check against to see if our morals are good or not. Objective statements come in when we're talking about things like "If we decide we want less murder, let's observe what kinds of values and laws promote that," but that's not the foundation of the moral code itself (I'd guess the foundation of our moral code is the mass of neurons we have in our skulls). And yes, there is no objective "ought." "Ought" exists only when people get together and hammer out codes of behavior that seem compatible with what "each of them would do in the moment." "Making a snap judgement" that is justified rationally later is, yes, how people operate, but sometimes that's a good thing, as we have things like empathy and love that are based on emotional judgements as much as greed and anger are. wateroverfire posted:Ok. So that's a utilitarian moral system, right? What matters is the balance of harm, and in this case having some meds stolen causes less harm than saving someone's life. That's a reasonable way to look at that situation but it gets less reasonable when applied to other situations. So? There's never going to be an absolute system of moral guidelines that can be consulted and followed in all situations across space and time, and that's ok. wateroverfire posted:For instance, what if instead of some meds what the wife needs is a lower spine transplant (let's imagine this is a thing). The only matching doner doesn't want to be left paralyzed and he'd probably die during surgery (though maybe not) and won't give up his spine for any price. Is it moral to force him to do it? I'd say "no," because any society that would condone violating bodily integrity like that would almost certainly lead to hosed up things later down the line, and it's using one person as a means to serve another person, which is in itself bad because it devalues one person's life for anothers, and if allowed could very well end up hurting more people down the road. This is different than my example because there's a difference between taking the stock someone has on his or her shelf and taking their spine. Of course, I'm basing this on my emotions, my subjective beliefs, etc., but that's how it always works. Also, Sharkie posted:Like for everything else I'm sure someone can always construct increasingly convoluted edge cases but that's the rule of thumb I go with. I guess I just don't get the hand-wringing about objectivity and consistency. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 00:06 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
whydirt posted:Oh man, for some reason all the mentions of Hoppe made me think people were just mistyping Hobbes for some reason I couldn't understand. The truth has led to a much more entertaining place.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
OP (and all an-caps for that matter), when your society is finally fully implemented by Lloyd Blankfein and his boys, would you like to be a) guillotined or b) hung from the lamp posts when the inevitable revolution occurs? ed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%80_la_lanterne Badera fucked around with this message at 05:27 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:19
|
|
|
Badera posted:OP (and all an-caps for that matter), when your society is finally fully implemented by Lloyd Blankfein and his boys, would you like to be a) guillotined or b) hung from the lamp posts when the inevitable revolution occurs? It doesn't seem terribly inevitable.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
tbp posted:It doesn't seem terribly inevitable. True. Wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
tbp posted:It doesn't seem terribly inevitable. Yes a society where the rich dominate entirely and the poor live in squalor is a place that surely will be a testament to order and decorum. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 07:37 on May 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Hey OP, if you're still here: It's completely impossible to derive a necessary prescriptive morality from descriptive or logically necessary statements. If you think you have done so, you are wrong, and need to examine your arguments more carefully, because you introduced an arbitrary and so subjectively rejectable 'should' in there somewhere. You find this terrifying, but part of being rational is accepting unpleasant conclusions.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 13:26
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:There's really no point arguing with an unfalsifiable proposition, is there? Similar to the obnoxious "is there a god" debates we've had here before, it is literally impossible to prove this guy wrong because his philosophy denies proof. We all know this. Logical appeals will not work on him. He believes it with his gut. You get right down to it, and, like all libertarians, his core argument is justified by BECAUSE IT JUST FEELS RIGHT. We've been through this before. What you should do is drag the ridiculous a priori assumptions kicking and screaming out of the shell of cargo cult philosophy they hide in, so people can clearly see that libertarianism means 'the property of middle/upper class WASPs is more important than literally everything else, and all measures must be taken to defend it, even if those include genocide and human rights abuses"
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
I dream of ancap it is the perfect system let's bring slavery back Property is just because life is zero sum you win or you're poor Objectivity because I said so you fool gently caress you I got mine Compassion is over- rated. I prefer self-interest why don't women like me? it's never my fault if my ancestors did harm RACISM IS OVER Let us debate friends wait that's not how I meant it agree with me, please it could get messy when ancap comes. but I am sure I'll be on top this idea scares me so I won't believe in it Mature adult here No, but seriously, I really don't know why you guys bother. Austrian economics is a religion. absolem in particular gave the game away when he said his truth is OBJECTIVE. The implication is clear. He has little self doubt because he believes his system is completely true and adequately fits everything. What can we do, other than communicate how absurd and horrible we think it all is?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Spatula City posted:No, but seriously, I really don't know why you guys bother. Austrian economics is a religion. absolem in particular gave the game away when he said his truth is OBJECTIVE. The implication is clear. He has little self doubt because he believes his system is completely true and adequately fits everything. What can we do, other than communicate how absurd and horrible we think it all is? It isn't a waste of time. Anyone have a copy of that Ron Paul will kill an infinite number of people banner ad? The first time I saw it I thought it was ridiculous. It's kind of like how a drop of water can break concrete, it just needs to drip into a little crack and slowly widen it.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
How do Libertarian ethics and morality systems deal with the issues of the commons? Meaning, say, if I live on land that has a river running behind it, can I dam it up or claim ownership of that one section that runs through my property? What if I start dumping garbage in it and it floats downstream into someone else's house? What if I just put a dam in there to generate my own energy? Do I have a moral obligation to let the people downstream have access to clean water; or any water at all? What about things like sanitation or first responders? That sort of thing. Some guy croaks in front of my street or dies in a car wreck out there. What private enterprise removes the bodies or do we let them rot in the sun? Who repairs any damage to the street or clears the wreckage? The property owner? Whoever caused the crash? What if they don't have the money? I assume in Libertopia there's no sort of insurance mandate. Am I allowed to have a big, stinking Homer Simpson landfill in my back yard even it's stinking up my neighbor's air and I'm attracting bugs and vermin everywhere? Who determines health hazards and safety issues in the commons? By "commons" of course I'm speaking about the things we all have to share like roads, electricity, water. Libertarianism offers no solution for this that I've found.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How do Libertarian ethics and morality systems deal with the issues of the commons? quote:Do I have a moral obligation to let the people downstream have access to clean water; or any water at all? quote:What about things like sanitation or first responders? That sort of thing. Some guy croaks in front of my street or dies in a car wreck out there. What private enterprise removes the bodies or do we let them rot in the sun? Who repairs any damage to the street or clears the wreckage? The property owner? Whoever caused the crash? What if they don't have the money? I assume in Libertopia there's no sort of insurance mandate. quote:Am I allowed to have a big, stinking Homer Simpson landfill in my back yard even it's stinking up my neighbor's air and I'm attracting bugs and vermin everywhere? Who determines health hazards and safety issues in the commons? quote:By "commons" of course I'm speaking about the things we all have to share like roads, electricity, water. Libertarianism offers no solution for this that I've found. Now that said in practical terms many (perhaps most) libertarians acknowledge a need for at least a courthouse for you to attempt to sue the giant factory owner in, and some cops to come arrest you when you end up in arrears on your mortgage, as well as perhaps an extremely basic sort of social services - the corpse-pickers, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Now that said in practical terms many (perhaps most) libertarians acknowledge a need for at least a courthouse for you to attempt to sue the giant factory owner in, and some cops to come arrest you when you end up in arrears on your mortgage, as well as perhaps an extremely basic sort of social services - the corpse-pickers, etc. So basically if we implemented all their ideas, the first things they'd do is go "poo poo, we really need to get these roads built/repaired. You know, there aren't enough schools around here either and my internet connection is pretty lovely. Between that jerk who hosed up my river and that poo poo with the landfill next door I got sick. I wonder if we could have a hospital close by or maybe a police station so I could call and have someone come over and tell him to knock that poo poo off. That car wreck is still over there too and the bodies are beginning to smell." They'd be clamoring for something to be done and, with no obvious profit margin to be had unless it were paid for collectively, no private company would touch it. They'd immediately want a...I dunno...a government of some sort to...say...regulate these sorts of common societal issues. gently caress. I cross posted this in the other thread after noticing there was one and was unsure which thread was better for it. Can you put your response over there (or can I)? Because it's a better thread. As long as I'm on it though, what about things like hunting and fishing restrictions? What if some rear end in a top hat collects all the fish and game in the county and nobody has anything to eat unless they pay extortionist prices brought about by the monopoly on the fish and game supply?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 03:22 |
|
|
The AnCap solution to the tragedy of the commons is to not have commons.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 21:06
|
|
