[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Really, stop cherry picking quotes to try to make some argument.
You just make yourself look bad. Again, it's clear you are trying to learn and I don't think you're doing it intentionally. I think you're just so excited to find some collection of words that you can stick a good argument against that you are rushing into it, without really considering the context or the broader point.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think I’m being pretty thorough in responding to all or at least the majority of your points. I have no idea what your broader point is, but attacking your premises is a valid approach, because without them holding up your broader argument wont either. I generally take a bottom-up approach whenever I can.

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of the things you're saying are very myopic. And I don't mean that offensively. I'm just trying to encourage you to sit back and think about things a bit before you rush to reply. It's more productive.

[/ QUOTE ]
I’m sorry you feel that way, but I don’t believe I’m being myopic. I can assure you that I’m willing to consider your position critically and have been trying to do so. If you find me unpleasant to joust with then you don’t have to (but I hope you’ll keep it going).


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One thing confusing about this discussion is that you claim to be a moral relativist, yet you also claim that you can judge the behavior of others as morally "right" or "wrong". Can you clarify your stance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Forget that I claimed I might be a moral relativist. Forget the word moral. Let's think about actions and consequences.

Rather than address this directly, I'll respond to where you try to show that murder can be good:

[ QUOTE ]
I don’t see why not. It could very well accomplish their goals

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No not necessarily. By keeping the blacks down, they are able to keep the better jobs, resources, etc for themselves. Even if there were costs in terms of contribution benefits, this might be less important to them than the psychological benefits of superiority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think this is reasonable assumption of the human condition when it acts voluntarily? They *might* want to dedicate their lives to learning to fly too. And if they do, the market will speak.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, first explain what you mean by “voluntarily”, because I apparently didn’t understand your use of that word in your previous post, resulting in you being peeved. Also what assumption are you talking about?

[ QUOTE ]
So a better question. Let's say these people *do* believe murdering the blacks is good. Which approach do you think is a more efficient solution: to pass a law saying that murdering blacks is very bad, or to allow free interaction on all parts and watch what happens?

[/ QUOTE ]
By solution you mean method of preventing blacks from being murdered? To answer your question (if I have it right), I don’t see how allowing free interaction (which includes murder) is a solution and I think illegalizing murder (making it a punishable offense) would help, but not solve the problem entirely.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They may have attachments to land, social networks or work in the area. They may have nowhere better to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would they attain their attachment to land or social networks that exist somewhere where people want to murder them for the color of their skin???

[/ QUOTE ]
The same way they would anywhere else.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would they voluntarily choose to go anywhere near there, let alone grow fond of it?

[/ QUOTE ]
They may have nowhere better to go (I repeat). They may have been born there. It may have degenerated to its state of affairs after they’d already been living there for awhile. Etc.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tons of people have lived in societies that have systematically discriminated against them.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many of these people have done so voluntarily?

[/ QUOTE ]
Lived in the societies voluntarily or been discriminated against voluntarily? Either way I never said it had to be voluntary. There’s that word again. I feel I’m missing some sort of premise you’re employing.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well this is besides the point, but you’re wrong. The US broke many signed contracts with native American populations and forcibly removed them from land that they wanted to expand to, often resulting in much death and suffering (e.g. the “trail of tears”).

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the history lesson, but it's irrelevant to the point. Respect for contracts is at the heart of AC. Violation of contract is bad. So yes, in that case (if what you're saying is historically true), sure I consider that BAD, for some reason I'd be able to elaborate on if I knew the context of your example.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just make up some context/details if you like.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then can you explain why this was not in the US’s best interest since that’s your definition of morality? They wanted to expand and felt it was in their best interest to get the native Americans out of the way, regardless of whatever contracts they may have signed with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says it wasn't?

[/ QUOTE ]
You, since you defined “in your best interest” as “good” and violation of contracts as “bad”. Am I wrong?

[ QUOTE ]
What you're saying is that the US made some contract where the natives gave them the land for some compensation, and the US later violated that contract. If that is the case, then that is BAD, and the US would have been better off to not do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
But can you explain why? That’s what I was asking.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because we are the most powerful nation in the world does not mean everything is perfect, and that we made no mistakes along the way. Far from it.

[/ QUOTE ]
That wasn’t my point. I’m challenging your notion that you can make objective universal judgements about what’s “good” and “bad”. I maintain that they’re relative concepts. In the case of my example you could say it was “good” for Americans like Andrew Jackson who wanted the native Americans out of the way, “bad” for the native Americans, “bad” for those who felt empathy for the native Americans or disgust over the unfairness of breaking a contract and a mixture for those who benefited from the land, but perhaps felt bad about it. This is speaking in simplified terms of course.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want, link me to whatever the hell you're talking about, and I can elaborate on what the specific consequences could maybe have been for a particular breach of contract.

But just saying "These people broke a contract with these people... TELL ME WHY IT'S BAD!!!" isn't gonna be all that productive.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you need specifics and can’t why show something is “bad” on a general level that would appear to suggest that violating contracts is only bad in certain situation. How will showing it's bad in one situation demonstrate that it's always bad?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't make money without providing some good or service that someone else (with a different preference than your own) values more highly than what he gives to you.[ QUOTE ]
That’s a far from sufficient explanation of the above statement. But just to give a simple counter-example: Sure you do... You can take it by force (or stealth).

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because you conveniently left out the sentence right before it that actually held the substance, which said:

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that what's best for him *will* be best for society when all actions are voluntary.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take it by force, it is not voluntary.



[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not familiar with this idea “when all actions are voluntary”. Can you explain it? I didn’t leave it out out of maliciousness, btw. I assumed that mugging someone was a voluntary act.