Seph:So as long as I don't violate the NAP, it is impossible for me to do anything morally objectionable by anyone's standards?
Seph: Knight_of_BAAWA: No, it's not. Morality is the code of interpersonal conduct wrt rights-respecting. So as long as I don't violate the NAP, it is impossible for me to do anything morally objectionable by anyone's standards?
Knight_of_BAAWA: No, it's not. Morality is the code of interpersonal conduct wrt rights-respecting.
No, it's not. Morality is the code of interpersonal conduct wrt rights-respecting.
So as long as I don't violate the NAP, it is impossible for me to do anything morally objectionable by anyone's standards?
According to the idiots that reduce all morality to libertarianism, yes.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I'm not objecting to freedom as an ethical standard, I'm objecting to treating it as exhausting the entirety of ethics.
Brainpolice:I'm not objecting to freedom as an ethical standard, I'm objecting to treating it as exhausting the entirety of ethics.
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Knight_of_BAAWA:No, it's not. Morality is the code of interpersonal conduct wrt rights-respecting.
Brainpolice:According to the idiots that reduce all morality to libertarianism, yes.
Brainpolice: I'm not objecting to freedom as an ethical standard, I'm objecting to treating it as exhausting the entirety of ethics.
1) I think you may have taken the bait on a textbook logical fallacy from Juan
2) It should be obvious that if you wish to continue on in this discussion it will probably result in the same way as all the previous ones dealing with the NAP. While your statement may seem simple and obvious enough, for some reason it does not bode well with many here. That would lead me to believe there is some form of communication error somewhere; perhaps to the point where people have to carefully define morality, ethics, etc if one wants to try to salvage a productive conversation.
Could part of the communication breakdow be that this site specializes on the topics of freedom and economics, while you diverge a little out of it when talking about the entirety of ethics? I have no idea, but a seemingly simple and uncontroversial view certainly meets with much hostility on this site.
Main point/ question where and why does this disagreement happen?
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
I"m pissed I had a reply, I conceded some of your points and argued others. It's gonna take awhile to recompose it. Be aware sometimes the backspace key will take you back a page and erase everything. I want to continue the discussion, I'll recompose it, not now though I'm too pissed.
"...The post-totalitarian system contrives to force life into its most probable states...This system serves people only to the extent necessary to ensure that people will serve it
Vaclav Havel
Knight_of_BAAWA: How wonderful. Now you get to demonstrate that morality means something other than what it actually means. Go to it.
How wonderful. Now you get to demonstrate that morality means something other than what it actually means. Go to it.
Morality: What is right and wrong.
But apparently when I consider some things to be morally wrong, I'm actually thinking something else entirely.
How nice of you to tell me what I'm thinking.
Seph:Morality: What is right and wrong.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Seph:Morality: What is right and wrong.wrt what?
Concerning the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong.
Is that ok?
No. You need to specific what it's in relation to. You simply put different words for right and wrong. But what do those relate to? What's the unifying concept?
Knight_of_BAAWA: No. You need to specific what it's in relation to. You simply put different words for right and wrong. But what do those relate to? What's the unifying concept?
Well now that's largely based on opinion. That is to say, anything allowed by the NAP could be considered moral or immoral by anyone.
*sigh*
Ok, what problem are you having with the English language such that you are not grasping that moral/immoral require something of which they are the modifiers?
Knight_of_BAAWA: *sigh* Ok, what problem are you having with the English language such that you are not grasping that moral/immoral require something of which they are the modifiers?
You're missing the point and in spectacularly condescending fashion I might add.
What do you want me to do, recite my personal beliefs on why I believe why X is immoral? Because that's really not the issue.
Rather, you're missing the point that moral/immoral have to do with something specific. That you're evading such is your problem. I suggest you fix it.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Rather, you're missing the point that moral/immoral have to do with something specific. That you're evading such is your problem. I suggest you fix it.
When did I ever claim otherwise?
Then with what specifically have they to do?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Then with what specifically have they to do?
Obviously, the NAP, I think we can agree on that. Additionally, in my case, the Bible.
Your problem is dismissing any view which holds that there are objective (and not enforceable) moral and ethic standards not prescribed by libertarianism.
If you don't want to believe that there are, fine. Live your life based on your moral principles and I'll live based on mine. But don't tell me that what I view as immoral is objectively moral, and that I'm simply labeling 'rude conduct' as immoral. That amounts to no more than childishly trying to force your opinion on others.
Suicide, I agree, is terrible. However, when it comes to vices like suicide, drugs, or abortion, no amount of "laws" and "rules" are going to work. They are misdirected, ineffective, and stupid. The only way to reduce or eliminate those things is through persuasion, not through force.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap