[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
pvn is the one using reason here Kaj. Reason leads one to some consistent set of first principles from which one derives further principles that determines the rightness/wrongness of one's actions, even if all others wouldn't agree on the axioms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated that I act on a particular principle over and over in this thread (namely, I try to act how *I* would want society in general to act). However, I acknowledge my principle is subjective rather than pretend it is non-arbitrary. There is nothing inconsistent about my principle.

[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree, and everyone is just acting according to impulse as a situation arises,

[/ QUOTE ]

I have stated my principle in over and over in this thread. And it was not "acting impulsively as the situation arises".

[ QUOTE ]
then you can *never* claim the actions of another are wrong in any discrete case.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can claim an action is wrong in that it violates my values. There really is nothing non-arbitrary to appeal to when one judges an action as "wrong".

[ QUOTE ]
You are just acting similarly to the Diceman, but where the random electrons in your head determine your actions at any instant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I HAVE STATED MY PRINCIPLE OVER AND OVER IN THIS THREAD. AND IT WAS NOT ACTING RANDOMLY! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!?!?!?

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, how would you even be able to determine that someone was mentally ill with your totally subjective standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't. What's the point? If I were mentally ill, it would affect my "first principles" (as you describe) just as surely as my personal values. And illness from one perspective might be genius from another anyway. Again, why must you keep pretending there is some non-arbitrary basis for human action that defines our "rights" when in fact none exists?