Thread for Kaj on topic of human values

[BluffTHIS!]

I don't want to hijack the property rights thread so I thought I would start this one. Kaj said there :

"Again, why must you keep pretending there is some non-arbitrary basis for human action that defines our "rights" when in fact none exists?"

and:

"The easiest example to refute being that I can force my neighbor to stop abusing his kid. This does not imply that I believe I have a right to do it, it is just my own value judgment as far as what preferences of mine I am willing to use force to impose. Why is this concept difficult?"


Have I gotten your "principle" right here Kaj that you refer to? Your principle is that your subjective judgment of any discrete situation is not in fact based on a higher set of first principles, but rather your own preferences. Is that a correct reading of your views? If not please explain.

That is, is your "principle" in fact that there is no basis for asserting or believing in any set of principles other than one's own preferences?

[Kaj]

This thread is wholly unnecessary as I explicitly defined my principle several times already.

My principle is that I try to act in a way that I'd like society as a whole to act.

The fact that there is subjectivity here is acknowledged. And also inevitable as any appeal to a non-subjective "first principle" is impossible.

[BluffTHIS!]

Kaj,

I only started this so as not to derail the property thread.

OK so your principle is basically the golden rule isn't it? As opposed to either acting to the benefit of total selfish interest or for one's tribe perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?

Now as to the subjectivity of that rule, would you agree that most philosophical and religious belief systems throughout history have advocated that golden rule in one form or another? Or is that rule only believed in by a minority now and in history?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
OK so your principle is basically the golden rule isn't it? As opposed to either acting to the benefit of total selfish interest or for one's tribe perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be correlated well to the golden rule, but is not necessarily the case.

[ QUOTE ]
Now as to the subjectivity of that rule, would you agree that most philosophical and religious belief systems throughout history have advocated that golden rule in one form or another? Or is that rule only believed in by a minority now and in history?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant to the question of subjectivity. Most Americans prefer pizza to eating grass, but that doesn't mean pizza is therefore an objective standard or a basis for "rights". Preference for pizza is still a subjective choice even if 99.999% of people choose it.

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK so your principle is basically the golden rule isn't it? As opposed to either acting to the benefit of total selfish interest or for one's tribe perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be correlated well to the golden rule, but is not necessarily the case.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why do you feel it necessary to engage in sophistry here? Either make an argument it isn't very well correlated or agree that it is, and that for purposes of this discussion we can call your principle by that name.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now as to the subjectivity of that rule, would you agree that most philosophical and religious belief systems throughout history have advocated that golden rule in one form or another? Or is that rule only believed in by a minority now and in history?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant to the question of subjectivity. Most Americans prefer pizza to eating grass, but that doesn't mean pizza is therefore an objective standard or a basis for "rights". Preference for pizza is still a subjective choice even if 99.999% of people choose it.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if there isn't any kind of inherent morality, however minimal, that all men share, then you can't really advocate that a murderer should be punished either by society or the victim's family can you? If your principle is one sided, as in solely being used in the hope others respond similarly in a game theoretic strategy, rather than a right you and others have to be treated in a certain manner, then when someone declines to play in a game theoretically cooperative manner neither you nor others should seek to punish him for same, but only seek to persuade him regarding future actions, isn't that right?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK so your principle is basically the golden rule isn't it? As opposed to either acting to the benefit of total selfish interest or for one's tribe perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be correlated well to the golden rule, but is not necessarily the case.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why do you feel it necessary to engage in sophistry here? Either make an argument it isn't very well correlated or agree that it is, and that for purposes of this discussion we can call your principle by that name.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did say it may be well correlated, but may not be an exact identity. There is no need to exhaust every implication of assuming an exact identity to a vague principle. (Oh, and isn't the point of your thread here to explicitly engage in sophistry, such as your need to pin me down on a definition to a vague principle?)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now as to the subjectivity of that rule, would you agree that most philosophical and religious belief systems throughout history have advocated that golden rule in one form or another? Or is that rule only believed in by a minority now and in history?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant to the question of subjectivity. Most Americans prefer pizza to eating grass, but that doesn't mean pizza is therefore an objective standard or a basis for "rights". Preference for pizza is still a subjective choice even if 99.999% of people choose it.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if there isn't any kind of inherent morality, however minimal, that all men share, then you can't really advocate that a murderer should be punished either by society or the victim's family can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I can advocate punishment. Are you having a reading comprehension problem? See my principle above. Where do you see a condition that states every human must sharemy principle before I act on it?

[ QUOTE ]
If your principle is one sided, as in solely being used in the hope others respond similarly in a game theoretic strategy, rather than a right you and others have to be treated in a certain manner, then when someone declines to play in a game theoretically cooperative manner neither you nor others should seek to punish him for same, but only seek to persuade him regarding future actions, isn't that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already stated that I will use force to impose my will if I deem it necessary (based on my principle above). And using force to punish (or deter) murderers is entirely consistent with how I want society to act. Nowhere does my principle state that I only advocate non-violent persuasion over force.

Are you really this incapable of thinking about this subject rationally that you must continuously invent aspects of my position that are never stated and are in fact completely contrary to what I have stated?

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel it necessary to engage in sophistry here? Either make an argument it isn't very well correlated or agree that it is, and that for purposes of this discussion we can call your principle by that name.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did say it may be well correlated, but may not be an exact identity. There is no need to exhaust every implication of assuming an exact identity to a vague principle. (Oh, and isn't the point of your thread here to explicitly engage in sophistry, such as your need to pin me down on a definition to a vague principle?)

[/ QUOTE ]

The principle doesn't seem that vague at all. So why are you trying to paint it as such? "Do unto others as they would do unto you". What isn't clear about that as a principle? It's not necessary to delineate every possible application of such a principle to formulate that principle.

And let's note something else. You can keep calling it "my principle" like you're some kind of philosophical genius who came up with it, but you're just another overeducated underthinking hack if you won't admit "your" principle is an archetype that has been around for thousands of years in very close form to the way you state it. If you want to assert you made some minor tweakings that are different, then fine, call it "Golden Rule Kaj variation" or something. But enough with all this obtuse refusing to define and name things.



[ QUOTE ]
Of course I can advocate punishment. Are you having a reading comprehension problem? See my principle above. Where do you see a condition that states every human must sharemy principle before I act on it?

[/ QUOTE ]

OK tell me if I understand you correctly. You are separating the Kaj version of the golden rule from any justifications or persuasions you might make to others to punish someone who harmed you. Thus you wouldn't be making a moral appeal, but rather an appeal to self-interest. Is that right?


And again, if most men agree with "your" principle, whether on a transactional or moral basis, doesn't that indicate such a principle, at some minimal level, is inherent in man? How can it be otherwise?

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
My principle is that I try to act in a way that I'd like society as a whole to act.

[/ QUOTE ] That's as good as it gets, dear sir.

(Lock the pilot's cabin! Here come the AC hijackers to argue that no such thing as a society exists...)

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that there is subjectivity here is acknowledged.

[/ QUOTE ]

There can be nothing else actually.

(Watch your back! A Catholic preacher is sneaking up on you to "explain" about everything being ruled by the higher objectivity of the Christian Allah...)

[mrick]

[ QUOTE ]
If most men agree with "your" principle, whether on a transactional or moral basis, doesn't that indicate such a principle, at some minimal level, is inherent in man?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is your way of showing that something is "inherent in Man"?

It's when most humans "agree" with it? Wow.

I remember when most men "agreed" that women should be kept in line. And children whipped daily to get sin out of them. And homosexuals burned at the stake. What happened to this kind of Man? God had a change of heart or sumthin'?..

[BluffTHIS!]

Cyrus/mrick,

If you are going to troll me at least come up with something better than that. "agreement" = the minimal agreement that has always been throughout all periods of history agreed upon, not that which existed at any certain moment.

BTW, do you use a proxy server or VPN or what to mask your IP when you create new gimmicks here?