[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
You may see it as nitpicking, but tangible/sound premises are essential when you’re trying to argue for an absolutist position.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, nitpicking I'd have no problem with.

[ QUOTE ]
Have they? I think you have a great deal of work ahead of you if you want to demonstrate that AC is the only logically correct political philosophy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't know I was trying to demonstrate that. My OP says it's the logical destination *to me*. But I realize that convincing others of this is a tedious, drawn out endeavor, and I have no interest in doing so right now. This gynormous tangent started when soon2bepro argued there is no way I could have much insight into David's moral beliefs based on observing his logic. I'm merely arguing (in addition to all the minor tangents) that "morality" should not be seen as separate from logic, and that it's reasonable to gain insight into a man's "moral" assumptions based on his logical application of various hypotheticals.

And it isn't that other philosophies aren't "logical" in some limited/myopic sense, or that people who hold them aren't logical people. It's just that AC, to me, is human nature. It's truth. And I eventually realized it. It's not like I believe in AC, so I want to do my best to convince everyone to join me. I just believe in truth and logic, and can't help but concede that AC is exactly that.

I made some posts in politics recently where I tried arguing against AC; because I really, desperately, wanted to believe that there was some merit to the state and all that stuff that's ingrained in our heads to be good. And I really like being tolerant of other people's thoughts, so I wanted to find some logical justification to be able to be. And eventually I came to the conclusion that there isn't one. Tolerance of the statism bias is separate from logic. Oh well.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]It’s subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why won't you answer the question? I'm asking what YOU think. I'm willing to admit it's subjective in some sense. But my point is that if every human being who logically examines the issue will conclude one thing, then it's effectively objective. It's subjective in the sense that human reason is not necessarily objectively good. But if you accept human reason as objectively good, then so too are its conclusions.

Nothing is objective in the grand scheme of things. I could jump off a building, and what the [censored] does it matter? My friends and family would be sad, but why do their feelings matter? Ultimately everything is subjective. So in a sense you're right. But to whatever extent human life is objectively worthwhile, it follows that so too must be something that the human condition universally determines is a good preference. If you don't consider that objective, then in your mind there just is no objective.

I understand your position. It leads to the conclusion that human life is not objectively good, and the destruction of it is not necessarily bad. My argument maintains the assumption that human life is good and worthwhile. If you disagree with such assumption, then that's fine. I've smoked enough blunts in my life to erode a lot of my human bias, so I can relate. But eventually you just realize that while there may be no true "objective goodness," the natural bias we have as humans is such where it seems good to conclude that life is better than destruction. Whether or not you want to consider this objective or subjective is pretty semantical. But what you should be able to agree to is that if life, rather than destruction, is objectively good, then so too are the things that encourage it.