|
The Inaugural Failure After making GBS threads up the US Politics May thread with my ethics discussion it was suggested that it be taken to its own thread. This is that thread. The scope of this thread is to discuss ethical and moral systems. It is not a policy thread and although it may be necessary to use historical or policy examples, they should not be the focus of debate. To start, I suppose posters should outline their ethical system or moral foundations. I will be using a pastebin link because gently caress that noise, but try to keep them concise. You should probably either post your own framework or identify with someone else's before you start debating, so others know where you are coming from, but if it doesn't turn out to be an issue, then that's cool too. This is a terrible OP, I'm sorry for wasting Snr's server space. HAVE AT IT
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
So here's my go at it http://pastebin.com/ZtYTzXiU Fairly standard anarcho-capitalism, basically.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So your entire ethical philosophy seems to rest on the inviolability of property rights and the objective requirement to define ownership based on first appropriation of land. Not all american land was owned (you can use it and not own it by virtue of not wanting it). If someone showed me that something I owned was actually owned by someone else, I would surrender it to them at once and so too should everyone else. That isn't the same as a blanket reparation.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Okay, but some historical injustices are well-documented. For example, the territories owned by the tribes forced on the Trail of Tears. Yes, it should be. A lot of that sort of thing ought to be done, and it all ought to have been done yesterday, but for some reason no one listens to me when I tell them this stuff... Who What Now posted:How would you respond to someone who rejects that property rights even exists, much less are the wellspring from which all other rights come? Many tribes had no concept of ownership Anyway, I'll just move somewhere were no natives lived and I'll be fine (hopefully)
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:At the very least America needs to be returned to Britain, they were violently forced out which was hideously immoral. I think you mean returned to the Amerindians...
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Lemming posted:No, I'm talking about the theoretical places that they didn't already own, according to you. Even if that were the case, Britain is the moral owner of America, so anything you own really belongs to them. If you're going to be consistent in your world view, you need to return everything you own to them, since you're not a British citizen and you have no moral claim to it. Only in cases where englishmen owned property that was taken from them. The english gov't or whatever has no claim to anything of that sort. Shibby0709 posted:What about all of the land of the Mexican Cession? I'd say that Mexico was coerced into signing the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo. Would you give up your property if you lived in the Western United States? Yes, same with hawaii, etc.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Bullshit, prove it. I'd rather just give it back, if its all the same to you Lemming posted:Hm sorry yeah they did, the colonists had contracts with the English government or companies when they came over, with the understanding that they could use the land as long as they agreed to do things like pay taxes. They stopped doing that and rebelled, which is very immoral, so the colonists were very violent towards the English government. I'm sorry you don't want to give up your stolen property, but I find your immoral acts extremely objectionable. Well, then we better go and make sure the saxons and angles give back all the land they took from the celts. Who What Now posted:Also, since you seem to respond to seperate posts between separate points, here's this again: With a debate, if it was appropriate, but otherwise no differently GlyphGryph posted:I might respond more later, but I want to share a very pertinent quote that had an impact on me when I was going through the same situation you seem to be now. I just read "Surely you must be joking" again. Feynman is one of my favorite people. It seems that my theory lines up fine with "dah real wurld" VitalSigns posted:Your definition of property rights does not appear to allow for this. Is this an Ayn Rand style "oh but they were savages so they didn't understand ownership of the land they were making a living on" argument or are you really arguing that Native Americans didn't really want their land after all and were happy to hand it over to white people pointing guns at them?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:26
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Yes, according to you. But I'm not actually interested in that. You're the one who's just admitted that you're living an immoral life, where you're admitting you're using property that you know for a fact is stolen. Why are you such a poo poo, according to your own moral framework? Give everything you own back to the rightful owners. I'm not though. I have no clue if any native groups owned my land, but I have a pretty good idea that no one else did. I guess another thing is that poo poo doesn't automatically transfer to your kids. Property can be assumed to be transfered to the kid, but anything else isn't their fault
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
Crowsbeak posted:I always have loved how libertarians get around this stolen property idea by maintain that because you received what was effectively stolen but didn't know it you should be able to keep it. You know like if your dad stole some artwork from a museum, and then he dies you should definitely be able to keep the artwork he stole. How the hell am I supposed to give it back to someone I don't even know existed? Also, do I need to change the OP so you fools have to post ideas of your own instead of just bashing me? Its not that I don't enjoy the debate, its just annoying to have you people act like my ideas are poo poo while 1)not doing a very good job and 2)probably having ideas that are just as bad
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Why? Because you can hand your kid the deed to your house, you can't hand them culpability for the 13 small children you murdered. you can't transfer that sort of thing? care to tell me how that would work? besides you could just not take the house
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:It's good to hear. Hopefully, though, you will humour me for a little bit, then. I would argue there are two important pillars that any good moral theory must rest on: The Personal and The Practical. If you disagree, feel free to let me know, and to propose counter points as to what makes a moral theory worthwhile, but I think these points are fairly uncontentious. While I like the criteria you've set up, you move into truth in the middle nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, an ancap world (with all the realistic flaws) would be fantastic. Implementing it could get messy, but I'm comfortable with a gradual transition towards freedom. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised or upset to see similar institutions as we have now show up in new Free as in Freedom™ forms. 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Someone steals your stereo, turns around and hands it to the guy next to him for $1. Suddenly it is no longer your stereo, and the guy next to him has no culpability? why are you even here? at least the other people berating me are largely intelligent...
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:15
|
|
|
I'm going to re-say that if someone proves themselves the rightful owner of something I hold, I will honor their claim. However, at the same time I will demand restitution from the person who sold it to me because they broke their implied contract when they asserted that they had the right to sell it. This whole "theres a theoretical person who might own it because his ancestor who could have lived there might have passed it on to him" thing isn't going to cut it. I didn't steal it, they need to prove the claim, since there's been no ongoing aggression on my part.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
What I meant earlier is that I would like to think that's true, and I would be really scared to accept a system that doesn't advance that, because having irrational judegements hold sway on whether I'm an ok guy or not freaks me out.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:He's only taking what you've outlined and take it to its logical conclusion. If you dismiss it out of hand then so too can we dismiss your position out of hand. except he was wildly wrong about what I even said, at least most other people are actually comprehending my arguments, this rear end in a top hat was just being almost as retarded as me...
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait wait, what? In the last thread, you admitted that your ancap world had no solution to the problem of a wealthy monopsonistic employer (or a few local wealthy employers in collusion) hiring private armies like the Pinkertons to initiate force against their workers. because the hiring of armies to rule by force and taxation involve aggression and are therefore unjustifiable.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Corvinus posted:I've been around for more than a few right-libertarian song-and-dance routines and every single one has failed to philosophically prove why property rights are more important than any other right or human construct, especially without coming off as borderline psychopathic. How come we can have objective laws of X, but not objective morality? The sort I've suggested still seems pretty nice... (note, the first bit of that is an actual question)
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Caros posted:Because morality is by its very nature subjective and subject to change. A century and a half ago it was morally okay to own another human being, In places of the world today it still is by the local morals. 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
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
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). Also, I'm still going to post in US Pol, but hopefully in a way that doesn't spawn this insanity.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 01:50 |
|
|
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
|
|