Political Crossfire Forums

[thefranzkafkafront]

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that it is a RELATIONSHIP between an agent, an action or state that the agent would like to do or become, and an obstacle that prevents it. That is most certainly self-evident.

Quote:
The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Huh? Are you having trouble following along? We are simply attempting to define a set of terms in a logically consistent manner, not "justify" anything.

Don't get pretencious, thats not an necessary statement.

What makes it a relationship, as oposed to an innate quality of life, or any of the other millions of possibilities.

[Katsumoto]

RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.

Then we need to explore and define the set of prefered human bevaviors. From this we can determine an objective morality.

[Fido]

Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.

Then we need to explore and define the set of prefered human bevaviors. From this we can determine an objective morality.

When it is agreed upon it becomes objective to those who agree upon it and to no others. Morality changes in time and in the perspectives of those who relate through it as a form. There are absolutely no objective moral truths, only subjectively true moral truth that are so commonly accepted as to seem objectively true.

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that it is a RELATIONSHIP between an agent, an action or state that the agent would like to do or become, and an obstacle that prevents it. That is most certainly self-evident.

Quote:
The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Huh? Are you having trouble following along? We are simply attempting to define a set of terms in a logically consistent manner, not "justify" anything.

Don't get pretencious, thats not an necessary statement.

What makes it a relationship, as oposed to an innate quality of life, or any of the other millions of possibilities.

How can property be an "innate quality of life"? Animals survive without property. Many human societies have flourished without property as well. Don't confuse the need to use the external environment with property rights in the external environment. Property is nothing more than an agreement among men that these objects are mine and I may do some specific things with them and you may not. Nothing more.

[thefranzkafkafront]

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that it is a RELATIONSHIP between an agent, an action or state that the agent would like to do or become, and an obstacle that prevents it. That is most certainly self-evident.

Quote:
The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Huh? Are you having trouble following along? We are simply attempting to define a set of terms in a logically consistent manner, not "justify" anything.

Don't get pretencious, thats not an necessary statement.

What makes it a relationship, as oposed to an innate quality of life, or any of the other millions of possibilities.

How can property be an "innate quality of life"?
And how can it not, all im saying is that your defintion of rights needs futher justification

Quote: Animals survive without property. And some don't Chimps for example have basic concepts of tools.

Quote: Many human societies have flourished without property as well. Don't confuse the need to use the external environment with property rights in the external environment.
I think the essential problem here is that you think im simply taking the legalistic stance towards property. In essence ownship(allthough not nessisarly having to own it) is key to the ability to use tools as i've noted slighlty above.

However this wasunt what I was getting at when i asked you, we can talk about property later, what im looking for is deeper justification than the unlogical 'self evident' for your principle of rights being transferal.

Quote:
Property is nothing more than an agreement among men that these objects are mine and I may do some specific things with them and you may not. Nothing more.
As above.

[Fido]

RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that it is a RELATIONSHIP between an agent, an action or state that the agent would like to do or become, and an obstacle that prevents it. That is most certainly self-evident.

Quote:
The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Huh? Are you having trouble following along? We are simply attempting to define a set of terms in a logically consistent manner, not "justify" anything.

Don't get pretencious, thats not an necessary statement.

What makes it a relationship, as oposed to an innate quality of life, or any of the other millions of possibilities.

How can property be an "innate quality of life"? Animals survive without property. Many human societies have flourished without property as well. Don't confuse the need to use the external environment with property rights in the external environment.

Quote: Property is nothing more than an agreement among men that these objects are mine and I may do some specific things with them and you may not. Nothing more.

Which is to say it is a form of a relationship involving as most seem to: agreement, respect, identity, and recognition. Property is not a relationship, but a form of relationship.

[Atlas Bergeron]

RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.

Just wondering, can you state what an objective morality would be?
Probably not, at least not completely and without flaws. It takes a long time for physicsists to reach an actually perfect measurement--and even then it is never really perfect. There is always a smaller time frame from which to measure.
In all, we can only attempt to strive for the objectively perfect morality. But again, I would not like to get into this discussion here.

Overall, I think this is an interesting distinction. I have never held the two terms (rights and liberties) to be separate, although I can see from your distinctions that they very well could be.

[Katsumoto]

Fido wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.

Then we need to explore and define the set of prefered human bevaviors. From this we can determine an objective morality.

When it is agreed upon it becomes objective to those who agree upon it and to no others. Morality changes in time and in the perspectives of those who relate through it as a form. There are absolutely no objective moral truths, only subjectively true moral truth that are so commonly accepted as to seem objectively true.

I disagree. There is an objective morality that can be derived by defining prefered human behaviors. Take a look at the article I linked earlier in the thread. Ignore the libertarian rhetoric at the beginning and focus on what he has to say about objective morality. I think he is right on the money.

[Kindred]

Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote:
Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

We sure can. But first we must define what "justice" means.


Justice = Moral Action, or the application of moral action to rectify immoral action.

So what is moral action?

Moral action is the set of preferred human behaviors. Since we're on the topic of definitions, how can you find the authos definition of 'morals' in any way legitimate

Quote: Simply put, morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the behaviour of matter.

Preffered by whom?

And then he goes on with this strictly tautological garbage:

Quote: The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

If you can't see the problem with the above syllogism, then you're just not trying hard enough.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Animals survive without property.

All animals have territories, which they defend.

Property is merely how sentient beings adjudicate these territories without violence in a modern free society.

Even if a society existed that claimed that property did not exist, people would still have and defend their territories, even if it's only a clerk's desk in a government office somewhere in a dingy government office building or a little bureaucratic power over another. Only it would necessarily be under the aegis of a corrupt system as this behavior would be not sanctioned by the ideology that was in control. In fact collectivist ideology is specifically designed to try and remove this factor from human behavior and that is why they are simply not feasible.

Human beings are human beings and nothing is ever going to change that fact. Collectivist ideologies are worthless as all people will simply use them for their own personal benefit, This the reality of how human beings exist.

There is how human beings claim to run their affairs, and then there is how they actually do this.

The beauty of the American constitutional republic is that it takes this fact of nature into consideration. It's a damn good thing the political sophistry we are hearing here exists only in the minds of a few troubled persons and are, for now, not the curse to humanity that they have the potential to be.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: And then he goes on with this strictly tautological garbage:

Quote:
The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.


If you can't see the problem with the above syllogism, then you're just not trying hard enough.




Don't try to worm your way out of this by misusing "big words" that you obviously do not fully comprehend the meaning of. The term you are looking for is tautologous, not tautological. And it refers to the needless repetion of an idea or statement in a communication, not using the same word several times. That would be a redundancy.

The fact is your preferred behavior may be different from his preferred behavior but it is still preferred behavior. If you were existing free of the desire for preferred behavior you wouldn't be on this forum promoting your ideology.

The denial of preferred behavior is in itself an expression of this desire.

[cap'n queasy]

Liberty cannot be analyzed outside the context of self-government.

If there exists no absolute moral standard by which the individual can govern himself by, then a successful society with the feature of liberty is impossible.

So, by definition, denial of objective morality is a rejection of the principle of human liberty.

Quote: "Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties
by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names
for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
John Adams

[RueTheDay]

thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: RueTheDay wrote: thefranzkafkafront wrote: You state that freedom is a contractural arangement by two parties when this is very far from self evident or a self justifing fact.

No, in fact I never said anything of the sort. I said that it is a RELATIONSHIP between an agent, an action or state that the agent would like to do or become, and an obstacle that prevents it. That is most certainly self-evident.

Quote:
The basis premise of the whole peice needs justifying first.

Huh? Are you having trouble following along? We are simply attempting to define a set of terms in a logically consistent manner, not "justify" anything.

Don't get pretencious, thats not an necessary statement.

What makes it a relationship, as oposed to an innate quality of life, or any of the other millions of possibilities.

How can property be an "innate quality of life"?
And how can it not, all im saying is that your defintion of rights needs futher justification

If life can be shown to proceed without property rights, and I have shown that it can and does, then the notion that it is an innate quality of life is shown to be false.

Quote:
Quote: Animals survive without property. And some don't Chimps for example have basic concepts of tools.

Huh? Using tools != property rights.

Like many libertarians, you appear to be confusing possession with property. As I have demonstrated in numerous threads on here, the two are not the same thing.

Quote:
Quote: Many human societies have flourished without property as well. Don't confuse the need to use the external environment with property rights in the external environment.
I think the essential problem here is that you think im simply taking the legalistic stance towards property. In essence ownship(allthough not nessisarly having to own it) is key to the ability to use tools as i've noted slighlty above.

That statement is just flat false. One need not own something to use it.

Quote:
However this wasunt what I was getting at when i asked you, we can talk about property later, what im looking for is deeper justification than the unlogical 'self evident' for your principle of rights being transferal.

In English please.

[RueTheDay]

Atlas Bergeron wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.

Just wondering, can you state what an objective morality would be?
Probably not, at least not completely and without flaws. It takes a long time for physicsists to reach an actually perfect measurement--and even then it is never really perfect. There is always a smaller time frame from which to measure.
In all, we can only attempt to strive for the objectively perfect morality. But again, I would not like to get into this discussion here.

Morality is a set of rules for behavior. An objective morality would be one that was universal in that it applied to all people at all times in all situations. It would also have to be internally consistent in that there could be no circumstance under which the set of rules generated a conflicting prescription for action. Again, I'm not saying that it's impossible for one to exist, just that no one has discovered such an objective morality to date.

[RueTheDay]

cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Animals survive without property.

All animals have territories, which they defend.

Territories, in such a case, are not property, they are a possession. A possession is something that is yours based upon the physical facts of occupation and use, and is only yours for as long as you can maintain that occupation and use (i.e., as long as you can defend it). Property is based upon title, and implies a set of rights to something even when you are not occupying and using it; as discussed before, these rights imply a duty on the part of others to respect them.

[Fido]

cap'n queasy wrote: Liberty cannot be analyzed outside the context of self-government.

If there exists no absolute moral standard by which the individual can govern himself by, then a successful society with the feature of liberty is impossible.

So, by definition, denial of objective morality is a rejection of the principle of human liberty.

Quote: "Be not intimidated...
nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties
by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
These, as they are often used, are but three different names
for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice."
John Adams


And objective morality becomes objective through the process of agreement, and to agree, one must be free to express dissent. It is not democracy that is impossible with an objective morality, but objective morality that becomes impossible without democracy.

[Fido]

RueTheDay wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: Quote: Animals survive without property.

All animals have territories, which they defend.

Territories, in such a case, are not property, they are a possession. A possession is something that is yours based upon the physical facts of occupation and use, and is only yours for as long as you can maintain that occupation and use (i.e., as long as you can defend it). Property is based upon title, and implies a set of rights to something even when you are not occupying and using it; as discussed before, these rights imply a duty on the part of others to respect them.

Once more... Property is a form of a relationship, even of consciousness. It is only as good as people's willingness to accept it, and to accept the rules in regard to it. The reason property exists in its present form is not that it serves any majority purpose, but that the majority values the relationship within the form, and as a standard of value it is a good as any other. I think people should be aware of the relationship because this would give them power over the form which usually has power over them.

[Fido]

Katsumoto wrote: Fido wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.

Then we need to explore and define the set of prefered human bevaviors. From this we can determine an objective morality.

When it is agreed upon it becomes objective to those who agree upon it and to no others. Morality changes in time and in the perspectives of those who relate through it as a form. There are absolutely no objective moral truths, only subjectively true moral truth that are so commonly accepted as to seem objectively true.

I disagree. There is an objective morality that can be derived by defining prefered human behaviors. Take a look at the article I linked earlier in the thread. Ignore the libertarian rhetoric at the beginning and focus on what he has to say about objective morality. I think he is right on the money.

Define away... But it is agreement that makes morals, and agreement that makes them seem objective. Only life makes morals valuable, because life is the source of morals; but the administration of morals, Authority in moral matters soon divorces itself of its raisen de etre, and make a morality of self power preservation rather than life preservation. So a cycle begins of life leading to morals, and morals leading to power, and power endangering life, and life redefining morality all over again. A change of morality is behind every revolution.

[Katsumoto]

Fido wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Fido wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote: Anyway I don’t want to turn this into a justification of libertarianism debate. We have enough of those. Instead let’s focus on the topic which you started because I think you really were on to something there.

My point was simply that an Objective Morality exists. That this objective morality consists of the sum of preferred human behavior. That the application of objective morality constitutes Justice, and that Justice forms the basis for all rights and liberties.

I don't have any problem with someone asserting that an objective morality exists, I just make the observation that I haven't seen anyone state what it is in a logically coherent manner.

Then we need to explore and define the set of prefered human bevaviors. From this we can determine an objective morality.

When it is agreed upon it becomes objective to those who agree upon it and to no others. Morality changes in time and in the perspectives of those who relate through it as a form. There are absolutely no objective moral truths, only subjectively true moral truth that are so commonly accepted as to seem objectively true.

I disagree. There is an objective morality that can be derived by defining prefered human behaviors. Take a look at the article I linked earlier in the thread. Ignore the libertarian rhetoric at the beginning and focus on what he has to say about objective morality. I think he is right on the money.

Define away... But it is agreement that makes morals, and agreement that makes them seem objective. Only life makes morals valuable, because life is the source of morals; but the administration of morals, Authority in moral matters soon divorces itself of its raisen de etre, and make a morality of self power preservation rather than life preservation. So a cycle begins of life leading to morals, and morals leading to power, and power endangering life, and life redefining morality all over again. A change of morality is behind every revolution.

What you are talking about is values, not morals. Morals are objective and do not change, values are subjective and do.

[Katsumoto]

Kindred wrote: Katsumoto wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Katsumoto wrote:
Nicely done. :clap:

But can we use that to determine what is justly a right/liberty and what is not?

We sure can. But first we must define what "justice" means.


Justice = Moral Action, or the application of moral action to rectify immoral action.

So what is moral action?

Moral action is the set of preferred human behaviors. Since we're on the topic of definitions, how can you find the authos definition of 'morals' in any way legitimate

Quote: Simply put, morals are a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify preferred human behaviours, just as physics is a set of rules claiming to accurately and consistently identify the behaviour of matter.

Preffered by whom?

You misunderstand the authors use of the term "preferred." He does not mean "personal preference" but in the evolutionary sense. His meaning is pretty clear. IOW Murder is not immoral because I prefer not to muder, it is immoral because if murder were a prefered behavior the species would become extinct. So clearly Murder cannot be a preferred human behavior and is thus immoral.

Quote: And then he goes on with this strictly tautological garbage:

Quote: The proposition is: preferred behaviour must exist.
Anyone who argues against the existence of preferred behaviour is demonstrating preferred behaviour.
Therefore no argument against the existence of preferred behaviour can be valid.

If you can't see the problem with the above syllogism, then you're just not trying hard enough.

Perhaps you can explain the problem. I see the above as a Validity, not a Tautology. But I have not done the formal logic (I am not that practiced at it) so perhaps you could demonstrate conclusively whether it is or not.

Anyway, you are introducing a Red Herring. Whether or not it is tautological is irrelevant, since tautology in and of itself is not fallacious--simply redundant.