David Sklansky is an ACist

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You said "it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good". It sounds like you're saying that it's impossible for murder, theft or rape to be considered a positive value within a society. Now you're saying "mistakes happen", which means it is possible and seems to contradict what you said before. That's how I read it, maybe you meant something different.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key word (in the first quote) is "rightfully." If someone concludes something different, I think he is wrong (and thus not entitled to act on such belief).

[/ QUOTE ]
Ah. Well I don't see how you can objectively claim that someone is right or wrong when it comes to subjective matters such as “goodness”. 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you disagree with my first quote, then I suppose you're willing to explain to me why societal norms such as rape, theft, or murder could be good?

[/ QUOTE ]Ok. Society X is comprised of whites and a smaller population of blacks. The more powerful whites hate the blacks and take up the occasional practice of murdering them. They consider this "good", because they want to keep the blacks fearful of them so they wont have to put up with treating people they hate as equals or with sharing more of their resources.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think this is a rational conclusion on the part of the whites?

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

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't you agree that this is a very BAD decision, and in the end, the white people will be costing themselves valuable contribution, merely because skin color means something to them?

[/ 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 ]
Moreover, why would any black choose to be a part of this society?

[/ QUOTE ]
They may have attachments to land, social networks or work in the area. They may have nowhere better to go. Tons of people have lived in societies that have systematically discriminated against them.


[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So does this mean it was "moral" for us to cheat and push around the native americans whenever we wanted to settle new land?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an odd example since the native Americans did not believe in land ownership. If they did, and were willing to barter for the land, the problem likely never would have arose.

[/ 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 ]
But sure, in general, taking people's property involuntarily is very immoral.

[/ 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 ]
[ QUOTE ]
My point is that a given individual may not care whether something (such as stealing) is beneficial for society as a whole or not. It's beneficial to him, because it makes him money.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
I don’t see why.

[ 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).

[ALawPoker]

[ 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.

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

[ 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 ]
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 ]
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? 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. 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.

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 ]
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 ]
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.

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. 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.

[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.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
But there are certain things (i.e. theft, rape, murder) that are so extreme where it's simply wholly unreasonable to think there could ever exist enough mitigation where someone with the human condition could rightfully conclude it is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many people voted for Bush in the last US election? He's commiting both massive murder and massive theft, but a hell of a lot of people still think it's ok. Why? Because they have a different set of morals/ethics.

Theft and murder are vague concepts. Some will call two very similar actions murder and heroism, theft and justice, etc etc.

And rape... I can't think of a more vague concept. Nobody knows what is and what isn't true rape, they just see how they feel about the particular situation and make a judgement, but if you analyze their principles you'll find a lot of contradictions. This applies to many moral issues, but especially rape.

The point is, morals/ethics are extremely subjective, how can you not see it?

You never answerered my main points.

Do you agree that morality necessitates bias?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about a "tit for tat" morality, which is universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So was I. But 60 years ago, racism was the norm, and few people saw it as immoral. Just to give a quick example.


[ QUOTE ]
Of course. Logic moves from premises to conclusions, nothing more. Without moral premises, you can't get moral conclusions. At least, not logically.

[/ QUOTE ]

But then there can be no universal, objective, bias-free morality. That's what I was arguing.

[ QUOTE ]

I go further. I think bias informs every human action to some degree. .

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I meant by bias. Check my post again where I posted the definition.

[ALawPoker]

[ 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 ]

What I meant is, I replied to you saying essentially "if the action is voluntary, the money gained will always be for the best." And you pasted the part that said "money gained will always be for the best" and then said "not if you steal it," indicating to me that you totally misread my argument. (But based on the rest of your reply, I guess you weren't clear on what I meant by 'voluntary.')

[ QUOTE ]
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 ]

I don't find you unpleasant to joust with at all. How old are you btw? Late high school/early college? (Hope I'm not way off, as that would probably be offensive.) You just remind me of the way I used to see things, before the broader idea really hit me. A lot of your arguments seem sort of impulsive, and I'm trying to demonstrate a broader perspective.

This thread is getting a bit tiresome, and I feel like all the points have basically been made, but I don't really feel any need to "stop."


[ 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 ]

Problems will never be solved entirely. Laws (in some sense) have good intentions, but they can never solve a problem efficiently. Consider what a "law" is. It's a human being or a collection of human beings deciding what is best. God doesn't make laws. The tooth fairy doesn't make laws. Super intelligent aliens don't make laws. *WE* make laws.

How can it be that a human or a group of humans who are detached from a situation will be more likely to know what is best than a human or a group of humans who are experience the situation first hand. Consider also that we evolved by making first hand decisions. That alone makes me pretty confident that an error will be more likely when you displace the the decision from the actor. And that's all a law is. It's a decision made by one human being FOR another human being. Why are the people making the laws so superior to the people acting?

If all the white people wanted to murder the black people... how/why the hell would they ever pass a law that said you couldn't do this???

But in the absence of centralized law of all sorts (and a dependence on first hand human nature -- the thing that got us here), when individuals have the right to travel, are not captured, displaced, enslaved, and then systematically segregated, it's entirely irrational to imagine a society where blacks and whites coexist, but that one group decides they want to murder the others!

Moreover, my question that started this tangent (I think) was simply, "Do you think murder can ever be good?" And this was your hypothetical. So let me ask you, if this group of human beings who irrationally valued killing people because of their skin color (even when it comes at the obvious expense of wealth and prosperity) did indeed exist, what exactly do you think of this society? Is this good, or are they making some sort of mistake? Do you consider this a good place to live?

My point with the whole "mistake" thing is that, yes, people do make mistakes. But when people act as individuals those mistakes are very rare compared to the mistakes that occur when you detach decision making from the individual and rely on the innate inefficiency of the bureaucracy.


[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No! Mugging someone is bad. Do you disagree? It's voluntary in the sense that someone did it, sure. But a voluntary action is one that both parties agree to (presumably because they consider it in their best interest). So that's the whole point. I know that mugging is bad, in all circumstances, because one party did not agree to it.

Everyone by and large agrees with this. Even if you want to consider whether or not theft is bad as a preference (which I have no problem with, because it eventually leads to the same conclusion) you have to admit that then, well, universally it is agreed that this preference is BAD. So then what's the solution to the problem?

A lot of peoples' instincts tell them the solution is to steal money from me (taxes) so that we can provide public law enforcement! But like I've been saying, I'm so convinced that theft is bad in all circumstances that it is just crystal clear to me (even if I don't have too detailed of an understanding of how law enforcement works) that the human inevitability problem (the fact that some people will screw up and think it's in their best interest to steal) will get WORSE when you try to solve it with MORE theft.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]

How many people voted for Bush in the last US election? He's commiting both massive murder and massive theft

[/ QUOTE ]

How much power would Bush have if it weren't for a bureaucratic government determining which humans are allowed to make decisions for everyone else?

[ QUOTE ]
but a hell of a lot of people still think it's ok. Why? Because they have a different set of morals/ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, they don't. Because they're confused. Ask a Bush supporter if he thinks theft and murder are good, and see what he says. (Hint: The answer is "no.") The problem is in the APPLICATION of their core morality, which gets convoluted in the inefficiency of bureaucratically allotting power, which is my very point. The very REASON why it's bad is because Bush supporters DON'T think his actions are good, but make the mistake of lending support to it anyways.

[ QUOTE ]
Theft and murder are vague concepts. Some will call two very similar actions murder and heroism, theft and justice, etc etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some will call it what it is, and others will justify the means with certain ends (like electing Bush so they can pay 25% income tax instead of 32%). So they call it what it isn't. But the whole point of logical discourse is to try to analyze things for what they are. So when Bush kills 100,000 Iraqis, what do YOU call it?

[ QUOTE ]
The point is, morals/ethics are extremely subjective, how can you not see it?

[/ QUOTE ]

They become subjective when people apply logic the way you are. That murdering is not murdering just cause some people say it is not murdering. If only it were the case the we could close our eyes and pretend these actions carried no consequence, then you might be right that it's truly subjective.

[ QUOTE ]
You never answerered my main points.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've answered everything that seemed worth replying to. I'm not sure what you consider your "main points" since I couldn't disagree more with all of it.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you agree that morality necessitates bias?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this question mean? "Morality" is just a term we use to contain what we consider "good." You're getting caught up in a word when there's no reason to, and I've said countless times in this thread to just forget the word (since it's effectively empty), and start thinking about actions and consequences.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you edit out the Dutch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I am not as conversant in Dutch history as I am the Roman, Spanish, British, and American.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's talking about a "tit for tat" morality, which is universal.

[/ QUOTE ]

So was I. But 60 years ago, racism was the norm, and few people saw it as immoral. Just to give a quick example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly, people outside of the group are rarely beneficiaries of that group's moral standard. Some element of tribal thinking seems to be hardwired, too.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I go further. I think bias informs every human action to some degree. .

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not what I meant by bias. Check my post again where I posted the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. I'm attacking praxeology for its assumption that humans are rational actors (that list is an example of how we aren't). But it seems to me that these kinds of distortions do fit the definition you posted.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you edit out the Dutch?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I am not as conversant in Dutch history as I am the Roman, Spanish, British, and American.

[/ QUOTE ]


The Dutch colonies around the world seem like a perfectly valid example of empire.


[ QUOTE ]
The Dutch Empire[1] is the name given to the various territories controlled by the Netherlands from the 17th to the 20th century. The Dutch followed Portugal and Spain in establishing a colonial global empire outside of continental Europe. Their skills in shipping and trading and the surge of nationalism and militarism accompanying the struggle for independence from Spain aided the venture. Alongside the British, the Dutch initially built up colonial possessions on the basis of indirect state capitalist corporate colonialism, primarily with the Dutch East India Company. Direct state intervention in the colonial enterprise came later.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Empire


[/ QUOTE ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ImageutchEmpire.png