Contraversial AC Related Thread (TL;PR)

[MrBlah]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to edit but was too lazy.
Let's say instead of threatening him with physical violence he uses some kind of mind control serum.

[/ QUOTE ] That would using violence in stead of threatening him with violence. That doesn't fix anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right.
But the point remains: Regardless of how you do it, it is morally wrong to make me work for you against my will.
And therefore, regardless of how you do it, taking something away that I have produced through my labour is also wrong, because essentially, that's like making me work for you against my will.

[/ QUOTE ] While I'm inclined to agree that it's morally wrong to have someone working for your benefit, without them knowing beforehand that their work will benefit you (or that it will not benefit them), I think it's immoral on a whole different level than violently imposing your will on someone. You're basically saying that tricking someone to do something and forcing someone to do something under the threat of violence, are morally the same. Or I don't know if that's what you're saying, but that's a position I whole heartedly disagree with. Of course, I can't stop you from having different moral views than me, but I argue that mine is the one who is deducted solely from self ownership, while yours in fact contradicts the idea of unlimited self ownership always being the highest norm.

[/ QUOTE ]
I chose some bad examples, sorry about that.
I'm not saying that tricking somebody into doing something for you is the same as forcing him violently. Of course it's not as bad. And stealing obviously isn't as bad as slavery. But both things are bad for the same reason, namely that you are forcing somebody to do something that he doesn't want to do. Stealing, essentially, is a form of violence.

Therefore, property rights are not violence. They simply state that violence against you is not alright. Defending your property rights is defending yourself against violence.

Now, you obviously shouldn't hit somebody who steals an apple, while beating up your slavemaster might be justified. But acceptable degrees of violence when acting in self-defence are another topic entirely.

[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I wanted to edit but was too lazy.
Let's say instead of threatening him with physical violence he uses some kind of mind control serum.

[/ QUOTE ] That would using violence in stead of threatening him with violence. That doesn't fix anything.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're right.
But the point remains: Regardless of how you do it, it is morally wrong to make me work for you against my will.
And therefore, regardless of how you do it, taking something away that I have produced through my labour is also wrong, because essentially, that's like making me work for you against my will.

[/ QUOTE ] While I'm inclined to agree that it's morally wrong to have someone working for your benefit, without them knowing beforehand that their work will benefit you (or that it will not benefit them), I think it's immoral on a whole different level than violently imposing your will on someone. You're basically saying that tricking someone to do something and forcing someone to do something under the threat of violence, are morally the same. Or I don't know if that's what you're saying, but that's a position I whole heartedly disagree with. Of course, I can't stop you from having different moral views than me, but I argue that mine is the one who is deducted solely from self ownership, while yours in fact contradicts the idea of unlimited self ownership always being the highest norm.

[/ QUOTE ]
I chose some bad examples, sorry about that.
I'm not saying that tricking somebody into doing something for you is the same as forcing him violently. Of course it's not as bad. And stealing obviously isn't as bad as slavery. But both things are bad for the same reason, namely that you are forcing somebody to do something that he doesn't want to do. Stealing, essentially, is a form of violence.

[/ QUOTE ] No. It's a form of trickery [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img] You aren't forcing anyone to do anything. You're just tricking them. And while I might agree that it's wrong, I also think it's wrong to respond to it with violence.

In reality, the barber or hair dresser or what it was will probably not cut my hair unless I have agreed that I will pay for it, and if I don't I'm subject to violence to this or that degree from security company Z or from the barber or whatever. I don't know how those kind of contracts would be best organized, but I'm sure they would be quite common in a free society.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
there is no set of morals that is obectively true.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a statement; it is either true or false. It *might* be true, but it is a controversial statement that requires some sort of argument.

[ QUOTE ]
The goodness of music is relative just like the "right"ness of actions is relative. There's nothing precarious about it. It's just like "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". You can disagree, but you'll have to come up with an objective standard of beauty, which I'll tell you right now is impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

How would it be 'impossible'? You might want to give supporting reasons why this must be so, since there are lots of people who would say that, in fact, Mozart's music is objectively better than, say, Madonna's.
But anyways, what I called 'precarious' was the position that relativists necessarily put themselves in. Which is the position of a) claiming that there is no 'objective truth', and that what each individual perceives to be true is true for them, yet b) that 'relativism is true' is true for everyone. This is a more serious predicament than you give credit to, and nothing you have said in your response really provides any type of answer to it. If it is so 'obvious' that what music is good is true only for each individual, then why isn't it equally obvious that whether or not music is objectively good is true for each individual (since, if the latter is also true, then if my subjective view is that 'Mozart is objectively good', my true statement has far-reacjing implications for the truth of other peoples' views).

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of gravity is very strongly supported by evidence. You cannot provide objective evidence for something like "Picasso is a great painter"

[/ QUOTE ]

umm... really? I think most people who know anything about art would beg to differ.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I mean by subjective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which isn't helpful, since it isn't really what the term means.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, 'opinions' look an awful lot like a type of statement, and statements are either true or false.
[ QUOTE ]
False. To illustrate I'll quote a little exchange from Futurama that I like;
"You are the most important person in the entire galaxy."
"So how I feel when I'm drunk is correct."
"Yes. Except the Dave Matthews Band does not rock."
Neither "you are important" nor "the Dave Matthews Band does not rock" are true or false in any absolute sense, although you can agree or disagree with them.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Look, I'm not making this stuff up. Take a course in formal logic--statements are either true or false, otherwise they aren't statements. As for your examples, I see no reason why they're 'obviously' not true or false. Let's take 'you are the most important person in the galaxy.' This statement is best interpreted as either 'i think you are the most important person in the galaxy' (which is clearly true) or 'you are (objectively) the most important person in the galaxy', which seems false. We could do the same with the other statement.
In any case, if you are a relativist then I do not see how you can hold the position that you do, since relativism fundamentally depends on the existence of statements--you are wavering between moral relativism (all moral statements are true for the person who holds them) and ethical non-cognitivism (ethical 'statements' actually aren't statements at all, and thus are neither true nor false).

[ QUOTE ]
You get the idea. Wrong is obviously a relative term. It's relative to what your set of morals happens to be.

[/ QUOTE ]
But you still haven't provided any evidence for this claim--it certainly isn't 'obvious' to anyone that has done any serious philosophical study, and the 'wrong' in 'theft is wrong' seems quite compatible with def #3.

[pvn]

Let's just start all over.

For this thread, we'll just take as a given that:

* right and wrong is subjective

* morals are subjective

* legitimacy is subjective

* anything else you want to stipulate is subjective

Let's assume that all of the above subjectiveness is objective. There's NO DEBATE over whether that stuff is subjective or not. It's a FACT that these things are subjective.

Sound good so far?

With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

What follows from here should be fairly intuitive.

[ALawPoker]

Blah, I just realized when I was talking about time preference I said high when I meant low. Baahhhhh. Silly me.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if I'm self-righteous?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about everybody who is impacted by their interaction beyond them? Do they have to agree as well? Or do you also need a subjective limitation on "how much" my interacation impacts you before I need your agreement? We've been down this road before, and I'm not sure you're logical development here is as clean as you're making it out to be.

[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
What about everybody who is impacted by their interaction beyond them? Do they have to agree as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "impacted"? If the interaction involves someone else's property, then they are involved in the interaction, and are one of the people who need to agree.

If you let yourself be "impacted" by the shirt I wear or the things I smoke even if I don't violate your property, why do you think you might have a say in it?

Ultimately it's shortsighted and utopian to think we should have a say in how other people treat their property just because we might notice and have some feeling about it. People resent it when you tell them how to use their things and run their life, and the blowback *TO YOU* will exist.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about everybody who is impacted by their interaction beyond them? Do they have to agree as well? Or do you also need a subjective limitation on "how much" my interacation impacts you before I need your agreement? We've been down this road before, and I'm not sure you're logical development here is as clean as you're making it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define impact.

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
With these assumptions, the only way an interaction between two people can be "legitimate" or "right" or "moral" is if both of those people agree.


[/ QUOTE ]

How can we get from 'morals are subjective' to 'interaction X being objectively legitimate' if morals/legitimacy/etc. are subjective? I mean, if I think theft is okay, then what good is voluntary interaction to me?