|
So do all anarchists think that coercion is never moral or ethical? Or is that just my ~statist~ misunderstanding? Also, utilitarianism is nice until you realize that the definition of "good" is up in the air. Then you're sort of back to square one. Brave New World is a great example of how utilitarianism can short-circuit itself. If you design people who are always happy and feed them food and sex and drugs their whole lives you have the perfect society, according to utilitarian calculus.
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So do all anarchists think that coercion is never moral or ethical? Or is that just my ~statist~ misunderstanding? Yes to all this, and I think that many attempts at moral systems start by asking the wrong question. "What is best?" leads to all sorts of garbage that is indistinguishable from Conan.txt. Since Freedom and Happiness have no imaginable limits they cannot be positive measures of collective good since there are no practical ways to balance or measure these qualities, and you get absurdities like what if the freedom and happiness of a child murderer is so stratospherically high that it outweighs the suffering and death of the victim, or even all of humanity? I prefer to ask "What is worst" and work backwards until I'm reasonably comfortable. This produces a radically inconsistent philosophy unless you really want to start parsing Jean-Luc Nancy and Theodor Adorno, but it is much more useful in the real world of terrible things. So, starting at the worst: 1. The complete eradication of all life in the universe. 2. Eradication of all life on earth. 3. World War (unlimited killing but short of killing all life). 4. Genocide. 5. Slavery. 6. Totalitarian Dictatorship. 7. War. 8. Apartheid. 9. Non-Totalitarian Dictatorship. You can see here that I value collective political ethics first, as the successful implementation of ethics on this level creates the space for the ethical freedom of individuals to occur. It is only after you have avoided eradication of all life, genocide, slavery, dictatorship, institutionalized oppression, and exited wartime that you can start talking about the normalizing of individual ethics (of course, human morality and ethics of course also exist in the midst of these terrible things, but they are constrained so much by the needs of survival that they are not recognizable to those not in those situations). edit: If you want to note that I have ranked these, you're right. And although everybody can probably agree that it's OK if the Grand Council of the Multiverse popped in to tell the people of Earth that the planet had to be The point is prioritizing overcoming the worst stuff before you spout off about property rights. amanasleep fucked around with this message at 08:31 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
I was hoping for another Eripsa; someone who sticks to their guns and spews endless paragraphs of pseudo intellectual gibberish no matter how wrong they are. I am so disappointed in you, OP. Why are objectivists (and ancaps are basically interchangeable) always the sort of retard cowards who would most inevitably be utterly crushed by such a system
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:16
|
|
|
absolem posted:
Since this thread seems to be the best to answer this one in... Good Citizen posted:My moral system can be generalized as: Pretty much this. Because I do have an obligation to my fellow human beings on this planet. Does it chafe me to know that some of my taxes are going to some 20-something rear end in a top hat who's decided that collecting unemployment-benefits from our generous welfare state while living with his parents is the bomb (full disclosure: Not an American. Norwegian)? Yeah, of course it does. However, if that is the price to pay for having a functioning social safety-net there if or when I or anyone else should need it, then you'd better believe I'm willing to pay it. And, you know, it means that loafing kid isn't homeless and starving, which no-one should be forced to be.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
A well thought out moral system does not start with valuing things, it must value people first. Otherwise it is not the value system of a social creature, which human beings happen to be.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 10:43
|
|
|
rudatron posted:A well thought out moral system does not start with valuing things, it must value people first. Otherwise it is not the value system of a social creature, which human beings happen to be. Which is also where libertarianism ( and the crazy ancap nonsense in particular ) falls utterly flat because it insists on valuing people only as things, commodifying every part of human interaction. Which is where I think you end up with the asinine idea that "murder, rape and stealing a dime are equally bad", as well as the perfect justification for the re-introduction of slavery, de-facto or de-jure, in one form or another that seems to be such a hallmark of libertarianism. Not that this is a stunning new insight, but on the off-chance the OP is going to peek his head in again, I'm at least going to leave it here.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So do all anarchists think that coercion is never moral or ethical? Or is that just my ~statist~ misunderstanding? It's a bit of a weird point. He argued it is never justifiable, but then went on, later, to list a number of situations where it was perfectly justifiable. Of course, he said those situations weren't coercion, but he seems to be using the word to mean whatever he wants to mean at the moment, so for the purpose of normal-speak it boils down to "things that are never more or ethical are never moral or ethical unless I think they are."
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:I 'unno dude, the line between advocating for Randian Supermen to be given full control over society because the drat dirty takers are inherently inferior, and claiming that humanity needs monarchs because plebes are just too stupid and selfish, is pretty fuzzy. Coming to the defense of Hobbes here, that is not quite a fair representation of the man. Hobbes' thesis is that, without government, all people, not some vaguely-defined "plebs," live in a state of isolation, poverty, war, and hopelessness. This is not because individuals are stupid--quite the opposite, Hobbes was an firm believer in man's inherent reason--but because Hobbes believed that this brutal competition was inherently human. He cited 'empirical' evidence, such as how people act during civil wars and in regions without state control. The only way to end this is the formation of a state, wherein all rights are forfeited to the Sovereign. Hobbes believed that the ideal Sovereign was a monarch, because that provided the most stability, but also said that the Sovereign could be a governing body such as a Senate. Furthermore, the character of the Sovereign, if he (Hobbes assumes male) is a monarch, is immaterial. He is not assumed to be smarter or naturally better than any of his subjects. What matters is that he exists and he is the supreme law of the land. By doing so, he prevents the chaos of the state of nature. For Hobbes, even most incompetent or tyrannical Sovereign (hi there Charles I) is better than the state of nature.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So do all anarchists think that coercion is never moral or ethical? Or is that just my ~statist~ misunderstanding? Utalitarianism is never presented without some metric (ie. definition of good) by which to measure/compare.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
absolem posted:I can't keep up with this at all anymore (especially since this was a queer day off from work). So, I'll leave it at this: very little got done here. I'm still not convinced that ancap-ism is wrong, but if you want to throw some other positions at me to look at, I promise to give them a fair shake and report back (if the thread is still around). I just want everyone to know that its not that I refuse to consider change, but that I'd like to be careful about it.It would be nice to find a better system, I just don't know if it exists (so point me towards one if you like). 4 hours. You gave it 4 hours. You wasted everyone's time by making them respond to you. You loving suck, and this is exactly why I don't usually allow "Debate ME" threads.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:4 hours. You gave it 4 hours. You wasted everyone's time by making them respond to you. 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. Richard Feynman got brought up earlier, and for all you concerned with being nice to people and solving problems, his book "surely you must be joking mr feynman" may not be philosophy, but as a couple other people said, its a great read. (really the only time he ever seems less than nice is towards some of the women he meets) He talks a lot about logical problem solving and the like, which is really cool too.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
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. Click the question mark under my username. Is Hans-Hermann Hoppe a cool guy? Do you think he's got something to say about how society should be run?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:37
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Can you solve the logical problem of the Hoppe quotes SedanChair helpfully provided? It is after all quite possible he is choosing paragraphs that would be less awful in context - will you not defend your teacher? That is quite the paradox. Because Hans was the sworn enemy of his own teacher, absolem would be would be attacking his teacher by defending him.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
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. A man's wife is dying of a disease. The pharmacist has a medicine in his shop that will cure her, but it is too expensive for the man to afford. The man asks the pharmacist to lower the price, he asks for alternative payment plans, etc., but the pharmacist refuses. Now, the man has an opportunity to steal the medicine his wife will die without. What should the man do, and why?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
absolem posted:I didn't make anyone do anything. Sassin' the mod's now, are we?  quote:the conversation seems to have taken an interesting turn (people are actually talking about ethics...) since I fell behind. Do you have anything to add? It got brought up in the other Libertarian thread, but I'll link it here too (credit to AnemicChipmunk). Are you familiar with Proffesor Walter Block and his views on Austrian Economics and the NAP? If you listen to that podcast, would you say that his views are similar to yours?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
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. What the hell am I supposed to take away from any of this? Look, the central questions in moral philosophy is 'What is Good and Why?'. Your system of property bullshit does not even address these issues, it just throws its hands in the air and says property should be the basis for morality because... In reality, all it seems to be doing is desperately trying to find some solid ground on which to base all of its internally consistent nonsense. The problem is that the really interesting question regarding moral philosophy comes well before all of that and your axiom ("property should be the basis for blah blah") is to be taken up simply because it provides "answers" to moral questions. Well, hell.. How about we base a moral system on some other completely arbitrary aspect of human existence? Judakel fucked around with this message at 19:29 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:A man's wife is dying of a disease. The pharmacist has a medicine in his shop that will cure her, but it is too expensive for the man to afford. The man asks the pharmacist to lower the price, he asks for alternative payment plans, etc., but the pharmacist refuses. Now, the man has an opportunity to steal the medicine his wife will die without. What should the man do, and why? The man should rationally recognize that the free market has decided that his wife's death is the most efficient possible outcome since the value of her life is less than the cost of medicine. If the couple wanted to avoid this outcome they should have worked harder so they could afford the medicine or a private insurance plan, but instead they made the free decision to be lazy parasite degenerates and now they must face the consequences. Thus the market punishes irrationality and rewards virtue. Glory to the market in its infinite justice!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:A man's wife is dying of a disease. The pharmacist has a medicine in his shop that will cure her, but it is too expensive for the man to afford. The man asks the pharmacist to lower the price, he asks for alternative payment plans, etc., but the pharmacist refuses. Now, the man has an opportunity to steal the medicine his wife will die without. What should the man do, and why? Find another pharmacist. Get a job. Get another job. Sell some property. Hold a bake sale. Appeal to friends and family. Appeal to strangers. Cook meth. Suck dick for cash. Get wife to suck dick for cash. Sell child(ren's) guardian rights. Jumping straight to theft seems like an immoral move.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
It's also worth noting that by stealing it you're denying it to somebody else.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:It's also worth noting that by stealing it you're denying it to somebody else. Only under the assumption that the lack of supply is what is causing high prices. Medicine has inellastic demand insofar as you will pay whatever you have to pay to keep living, thus leading to the possibility of totally decoupleing supply from demand. The flag pole example is a better one anyway however. You fall from a roof and manage to grab a flagpole. There is one window to a private suite in front of you, one you do not have permission to enter. If you don't enter you will die within minutes. Is it morally acceptable to 'aggress' against someone elses property in this way?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Find another pharmacist. Buy why though? Also, don't assume that the sick wife is the one that's going to have to start putting blowjobs on the free market, men can suck dick, too! StashAugustine posted:It's also worth noting that by stealing it you're denying it to somebody else. Any use of it is denying it to someone else. Oh, and just for the record, my answer is that yes, the guy should try to find another source of income if that is possible, because it's best to not cause fear or loss to other people, because that hurts them and the society we live in, but if he can't get more money, or if he doesn't have time before she dies, he should steal the medicine, because human life is more important than the systems we create to serve, protect, and regulate it. edit: Really, though, he shouldn't dally when it comes to stealing it. Like, he should still consider those options and use them if he can, but there's no sense letting his wife suffer under the threat of death...if she was confident he would be able to get the money, it would be okay to take that time. I guess that's a conversation they'd have to have. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 20:05 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Find another pharmacist. Figures that you'd appreciate this overly simplistic nonsense.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
So wait, did the op ever actually explain why his morality was actually objective and not just a thing someone made up that has no ultimate grounding in reality? Because that's still a thing with morality not actually being real.wateroverfire posted:Find another pharmacist. why should he do any of this? presumably he wants his wife to not die, why should he not seize the opportunity to have his wife not die? how can you tell a dude the right thing to do is to let his wife die and then expect him to give a poo poo about right and wrong
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Figures that you'd appreciate this overly simplistic nonsense. There's a certain pleasure that comes with having my conceptions of someone's worldview based on past arguments confirmed in this way
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
If you think property rights are absolutely sacrosanct, that there can be no justifiable violations, and that it's the greatest wrong anyone can commit (they think that you own yourself, so murder, rape, etc. are all wrong because they violate your property rights), then you're going to think that in any moral dilemma where the option is death via inaction vs a violation of property rights, the death is the more morally acceptable. The pharmacist isn't killing you, he's just not taking any action to help prevent death, as is his right. If wrongness derives from a violation of property rights then literally any action other than violation of property rights is okay. Which leads me to the absurdity of it all... One thing that never made any sense to me is that if I own myself, and infringement on my rights includes doing anything to my body I don't approve of, why are libertarians not violating my property rights when I walk down the street and they yell RAND PAUL 2016! or whatever? They're without my approval vibrating my eardrums. What a violation of my property rights! How dare they!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:One thing that never made any sense to me is that if I own myself, and infringement on my rights includes doing anything to my body I don't approve of, why are libertarians not violating my property rights when I walk down the street and they yell RAND PAUL 2016! or whatever? They're without my approval vibrating my eardrums. What a violation of my property rights! How dare they! This is edging disturbingly close to actual arguments I've heard from libertarian types concerning short skirts, low tops, and erections. I'm sure you can imagine where that went.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:Buy why though? Also, don't assume that the sick wife is the one that's going to have to start putting blowjobs on the free market, men can suck dick, too! Well. We could talk about all the bad effects that stealing has on the other party, on society, etc, but I think there's a response much simpler than that. Stealing is immoral. Hypothetical dude should exhaust all other avenues for obtaining the money before considering theft because otherwise his dying wife is not a justification - he had other options but gently caress it stealing was easier (and maybe gently caress that pharmacist guy anyway - rich prick!). If he legitimately just cannot get the money then stealing is still immoral, but so is letting your wife die if you can prevent it so the guy is, in philosophical parlance, "hosed", and a lot of  over the morality of the situation is probably not a useful thing for him to engage in.edit: That is to say, formal moral systems are really bad for resolving these sorts of contradictions and any system we consider is going to generate cases that seem unacceptable. Just do what you have to do and for god sake don't let your wife die for the sake of moral consistency. It might be more interesting to ask whether, if our hypothetical guy steals the meds for his wife and is later caught, should he be convicted of theft? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 20:25 on May 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:There's a certain pleasure that comes with having my conceptions of someone's worldview based on past arguments confirmed in this way Right back at you, bro.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Well. We could talk about all the bad effects that stealing has on the other party, on society, etc, but I think there's a response much simpler than that. Oh hey, you've used the conclusion as the reason for the conclusion. That's fantastic.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Well. We could talk about all the bad effects that stealing has on the other party, on society, etc, but I think there's a response much simpler than that. So you're saying that the choice between "stealing" and "letting your spouse die" is a Sophie's choice between two equally bad options? Ok. You still haven't explained why either choice is immoral, though.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Oh hey, you've used the conclusion as the reason for the conclusion. That's fantastic. Sup I see you paid to have your title wiped.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Sup I see you paid to have your title wiped. Nope. So, not putting any thought into another area of discussion, are we? Just more inane outrage?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:So you're saying that the choice between "stealing" and "letting your spouse die" is a Sophie's choice between two equally bad options? Ok. You still haven't explained why either choice is immoral, though. Do you think either of those things is moral? If so, why?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Do you think either of those things is moral? If so, why? No, no. He didn't take a stance. He asked you why you declared them to be immoral, rain man. The onus is on you to explain yourself. Asking you a question does not translate into "I think it is moral" for anyone but someone hellbent on arguing in bad faith. Answer the perfectly reasonable question. Why is it immoral?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Nope. So, not putting any thought into another area of discussion, are we? You are just worthless. I'm pretty committed to not engaging with you on any topic, so we can banter but that's about as far as any discussion between us is ever going to go.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:31
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I'm pretty committed to not engaging with you on any topic, so we can banter but that's about as far as any discussion between us is ever going to go. Because you know that the questions I ask you, in particular, get to the heart of the problems with every opinion you've expressed on this subforum. Answer the question. Why is it immoral?
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Because you know that the questions I ask you, in particular, get to the heart of the problems with every opinion you've expressed on this subforum. Yeeeeeah. It's because I don't want to touch the poop, bro. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Do you think either of those things is moral? If so, why? 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.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 16:14 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yeeeeeah. Ugh. Thank you for your contributions to this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2014 20:40
|
|