|
absolem posted:One of the nicest things about my beliefs are that they are objective. I mean, there is objective-ness in so many other areas, why couldn't I have it here? More than maybe anything else, the idea that there is no rational way to proscribe morality terrifies me. Ancap-ism seems to be pretty ballin', especially since nothing else seems to even remotely work, IRL or in theory. This is the most important and honest thing you've said in this thread. You cling to these ideas because they give you emotional comfort, and I guess it's everyone's right to do so, but to actually try and base a society off of them as if they were objective fact would be as ridiculous as trying to base all property law around the concept of reincarnation because someone happens to believe in it. You need to accept the fact that reason is often subordinate to emotion, whether you're talking about individuals or entire societies, and work on understanding how you're using your own reason to serve your emotional needs. I mean, if you were truly trying to use this as a guide to making decisions, you would be unable to be justified in purchasing anything because you'd never be able to ascertain the original holders of the property rights and the circumstances in which those rights were transferred. As others have said, you'd better not own food, clothes, or computers because I guarantee some of those things were produced under the coercive threat of violence, and anyways you'd better flee on a boat to international waters because the debates between Native Americans and ethnic Celts (usa>england>celts) over the remains of America won't remain non-violent for long. And I'm not trying to be a dick about the "emotional needs," thing, either. I think the pastebin is useful only as a way of pasting a veneer of reason over an often arbitrary world dominated by emotion and amoral self-interest. That's a scary thing, but there are better ways of dealing with it than deciding that the ethical gamesmanship you've turned to should be implemented in real life.
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
absolem posted:except that my proof of my ethics is still looking pretty ok even after a couple of you had a go at it, and your proof of the double down is obviously awful Do you practice your own ethics, or do you say "Well, I would but mumble mumble..." Because you should actually try them out and see if they work before you claim they're objectively true.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:Maybe he found out he was living on stolen land and is voluntarily returning it and all his former possessions to the rightful owners of that land? Maybe he realized his body is composed of cells that originated in his parents and were obtained by the non-voluntary acts of ejaculation and egg production. He's currently dividing his body in two to return these coercively-obtained possessions to their rightful owners. I mean, if ownership of your body is an a priori fact...
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
over the morality of the situation is probably not a useful thing for him to engage in.
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 00:26 |
|
|
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
|
|