Laughing Man:If that is what you think then you lack a firm understanding of the English language. By saying eating meat is bad, one is accouncing that committing such an act is bad for individuals, bad in the sense of being beyond the person making the announcement. By saying 'murder is wrong' I'm not just saying that 'well I think murder is wrong for me' but that it is wrong for anyone to do it or to suffer from it.
And? This doesn't hamper the subjective source of the opinion. If they mean "bad" as in unhealthy then it isn't necessarily an emotional expression but a factual assertion (it may not be true though). If they mean "bad" as in unethical or evil, then its pure emotion.
Laughing Man:Good in an ethical sense, yes there is no economic 'good [ moral ]' Economics is a positive science.
Try and keep up. I pointed this out pages ago.
Laughing Man:Have you not read a thing I've written? Its impossible for taxes to be "good" or "bad." I cannot and shall not try to work an ethics system into a science.(Please try and stay in the realm of ethics though to avoid any confusion over the economic meaning of good.)
Angurse:No room for reason? We can only use emotion?
Angurse:Or try and explain the consequences of taxes.
Laughing Man:How does it beg the question?
It begs the question what is "wrong?"
Laughing Man:What entails wrong?
I've been asking you that very question this entire thread.
Laughing Man:'the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man's nature'
So if it is best for man's nature to rape, then rape isn't wrong? Because I disagree with that entirely.
Laughing Man:Why not slavery? Why not communism? You are not supposing that everyone wants happiness and prosperity are you? And selfishness? Are you saying that everyone is objectively selfish?
Private property is more economical than slavery and communism. Read some Mises. As a matter of fact, I'm no supposing that everyone wants happiness or prosperity. One of the biggest problems with natural rights is that is assumes there is an end that satisfies the wants of everyone. There isn't. I simply could care less about the desires of murderers, thieves and rapists. (And yes, everyone is selfish (they just show it in different ways).
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Lilburne: LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility. Benthamite utilitarianism ought to have been called something more specific, like "social utilitarianism". I don't know if that's what LS meant, but if it is, I agree with him.
LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility. Benthamite utilitarianism ought to have been called something more specific, like "social utilitarianism".
I don't know if that's what LS meant, but if it is, I agree with him.
If that is true why aren't we all killing each other over ideas in which we think are false? If all that matters is social utility then why were there natural rights theorist? What utility did Locke gain by being exiled for his ideas? Where is the social utility gained by Spooner? Rothbard? John...Lilburne even with his 'freeborn rights'? Was this all a clever ruse to trick others into fighting for these individuals ability to be free from government? Or was it a premise that there are realm in which should not be violated? Things that are instinctively wrong?
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Laughing Man: I have started reading Roderick Long's piece on Wittgenstein and I think it very brilliant. The language we employ is one of objective nature. There is no subjective linguistics because there is no private language and since we employ objective language, that is language that is not bound to one single individual but all the people who practice it, then it follows that emotivist beliefs are nonsense. When an individual says something is good, they usually mean to imply that it is a social good, that it is something beyond themselves. Therefore it is not just pure emotion like the emotivists try to make it out to be. That is what I have drawn from it so far, though I have yet to finish it. I recommend it. Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action
I have started reading Roderick Long's piece on Wittgenstein and I think it very brilliant. The language we employ is one of objective nature. There is no subjective linguistics because there is no private language and since we employ objective language, that is language that is not bound to one single individual but all the people who practice it, then it follows that emotivist beliefs are nonsense. When an individual says something is good, they usually mean to imply that it is a social good, that it is something beyond themselves. Therefore it is not just pure emotion like the emotivists try to make it out to be. That is what I have drawn from it so far, though I have yet to finish it. I recommend it.
Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action
Read Wittgenstein's Vienna by Allan Janik and Stephen Toulmin before you get too into Russell or Tractatus Logicophilosiphicus. From Chapter 5 you will understand how the new positivists of the Vienna Circle used Wittgenstein's work to advance their own theories but were clearly misguided.
If anyone wants to check out/buy this book and discuss in another thread, I will be up to it as soon as I have more frequent internet in a week or so. It bewilders me that wikipedia's page on Heinrich Hertz says nothing of his philosophical work, even though much of today's theoretical physics rests on it and it was central to Wittgenstein's work.
Ernst Mach, following Humean principles, totally mistook Hertz's use of the German Bild for image/model. If you google maybe you can find some good stuff on the critical difference between Vorstellungen and Darstellungen.
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
Angurse:And? This doesn't hamper the subjective source of the opinion. If they mean "bad" as in unhealthy then it isn't necessarily an emotional expression but a factual assertion (it may not be true though). If they mean "bad" as in unethical or evil, then its pure emotion.
Subjective is dependent on the individual speaking. Objective is when it applies to the whole without exception.
Angurse:Plenty of room for reason.
So is reason subjective?
Angurse:It begs the question what is "wrong?"
I answered this at the bottom of my response to this with the quote.
Angurse:So if it is best for man's nature to rape, then rape isn't wrong? Because I disagree with that entirely.
But it is not best for man's nature to rape.
Angurse:Private property is more economical than slavery and communism.
You presuppose that people want an economical system. What if they don't? What if they want mass starvation and death?
Angurse:As a matter of fact, I'm no supposing that everyone wants happiness or prosperity.
You are saying that private property is more economical. I would ask why you think it is more economical but I think I know why and I don't want to get off on a topic that is a small side issue.
Angurse:One of the biggest problems with natural rights is that is assumes there is an end that satisfies the wants of everyone.
Because there is, liberty.
Angurse:(And yes, everyone is selfish (they just show it in different ways)
You are establish a objective behavior in individuals. What happened to all the subjectivity?
Laughing Man:If all that matters is social utility then why were there natural rights theorist?
Did you get the impression that I was advocating social utilitarianism? If so, please read my post a little more carefully.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
E. R. Olovetto:Read Wittgenstein's Vienna by Allan Janik and Stephen Toulmin before you get too into Russell or Tractatus Logicophilosiphicus. From Chapter 5 you will understand how the new positivists of the Vienna Circle used Wittgenstein's work to advance their own theories but were clearly misguided.
I have just started getting into Wittgenstein, thanks for the source.
Lilburne: Laughing Man:If all that matters is social utility then why were there natural rights theorist? Did you get the impression that I was advocating social utilitarianism? If so, please read my post a little more carefully.
You said you agree with him if he means that everyone is a utilitarian in the sense they want to maximize their social utility.
Laughing Man:in the sense they want to maximize their social utility.
Again, I must ask you to read more carefully. I wrote, "LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility." I was explicitly distinguishing individual utilitarianism from Benthamite social utilitarianism.
Lilburne:Again, I must ask you to read more carefully. I wrote, "LM, Everyone is an individual utilitarian in that everyone, by definition, tries to maximize their own utility." I was explicitly distinguishing individual utilitarianism from Benthamite social utilitarianism.
Yes, I know, I read that. That is why I said, 'was natural rights just a clever ruse to trick people into fighting for the rights of an individual theorist? Or was it something beyond the theorist himself, something that dealt with a realm that cannot be transgressed and that applied to everyone' [ in oh so many words ]
I see what you are saying, people joined natural rights because they thought they would get the most out of it just for themselves. Perhaps that is true for some but I believe that there is / was a group of individuals who were natural rights theorists not simply because self interest but because of the benefits it would bring to the masses. Its like libertarianism. Perhaps there are some libertarians who are libertarians because they want to do whatever they feel like as long as it is NPA-approved. However there are libertarians who are libertarians because they want liberty for all, prosperity for all etc.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what benefits a theory of natural rights would bring to the masses?
tacoface:Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what benefits a theory of natural rights would bring to the masses?
Well the theory itself doesn't bring people benefits. Natural rights doesn't give me liberty. It merely illuminates a truth of my existence, which is that since I am a human, I am afforded certain obligations which I must obey concerning the treatment of other and they most obey in treatment towards me. So I have liberty, self-ownership and the ability to produce property that I can call my own, natural rights is the organization of that into applicable system in legal theory.
Laughing Man: tacoface:Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what benefits a theory of natural rights would bring to the masses? Well the theory itself doesn't bring people benefits. Natural rights doesn't give me liberty. It merely illuminates a truth of my existence, which is that since I am a human, I am afforded certain obligations which I must obey concerning the treatment of other and they most obey in treatment towards me. So I have liberty, self-ownership and the ability to produce property that I can call my own, natural rights is the organization of that into applicable system in legal theory.
It seems useless to me. In reality might does make is. If you violate my property rights, I will beat your face in. That's all that matters.
Laughing Man:Subjective is dependent on the individual speaking. Objective is when it applies to the whole without exception.
Exactly. Ethics fall into the subjective category.
Laughing Man:So is reason subjective?
No. It is a contrast to emotion.
Laughing Man:But it is not best for man's nature to rape.
But you have yet to prove it. You have yet to prove what is best for man's nature. Men aren't a collective entity, they are individuals with very different needs and wants, some are at odds with one another.
Laughing Man:You presuppose that people want an economical system. What if they don't? What if they want mass starvation and death?
Want an economic system? Its impossible for men to escape an economic system. If men want mass starvation and death it natural rights aren't going to be any more useful than they currently are.
Laughing Man:Because there is, liberty.
Liberty doesn't solve that problem though. I want to murder you, you want to open a flower shop. Liberty won't help us both.
Liberty isn't a right, read de Jasay. "Liberty should be presumed, not because we have a "right" to it, or because it is the most important value or goal, but because it follows from the requirements of epistemology and logic."
Laughing Man:You are establish a objective behavior in individuals. What happened to all the subjectivity?
Its no different than saying "men act."
Theres a saying something like: "There are no good deeds, only good men."
"God" or "natural rights" are noumenal abstractions. This doesn't mean they are worthless, but some of you are trying to square the circle.
Angurse: I have no idea...
I have no idea...
you've already established that.
Angurse: Not a single definition above contradicts what I said.
Not a single definition above contradicts what I said.
and it doesn't contradict what I've said. i don't know what you're reading. objects are not merely material, but you like to think so.
I posted definitions as to what I'm talking about, but here's even another dictionary that spells it out more explicitly, almost word for word as I've said all along. It did take some thought to understand the definitions I pointed out above, but since you are non-cognitive and rely upon your feelings to read it might make such efforts difficult. idk. Here it is. It's a common understanding:
5. anything that may be apprehended intellectually: objects of thought.
the rest of your post is merely a fetish about subjective or objective, which I've stated I'm not hung-up on. You've taken up the cause of supporting somebody laughing at the ill-wills of others. I don't find that to be ethical. So I'm moving on in light of your disposition about the world, ethically speaking.
good night
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
tacoface: It seems useless to me. In reality might does make is. If you violate my property rights, I will beat your face in. That's all that matters.
yes, it boils down to that, OR you can be logical and reason ahead of time, "Oh, that's somebody's property and they might beat my face in if I violate it." Natural rights are not arbitrary, but coherently logical that any one person can discover such truths on their own. That's why it's called natural (intellectual) law. When critical thinking is being applying on human nature these become self-evident truths that entail peaceful co-existence. But you seem to be saying instead of thinking ahead of time and having the low-time preference for far-sightedness, then you need to know each and every time that walking onto anothers property may lead to a persons face being beaten in. Good luck with that venture. Do you have to learn that everyday? I guess this is why Pavlov's law doesn't always work. hmm, is it really a law?
Angurse: Liberty isn't a right, read de Jasay. "Liberty should be presumed, not because we have a "right" to it, or because it is the most important value or goal, but because it follows from the requirements of epistemology and logic."
Rights are principles. This isn't anything new. Natural means intellectual and the objects apprehended by such (the intellect). It always has in the natural law tradition. If I were de Jasay, I wouldn't leave out metaphysics because liberty is.
wilderness: tacoface: It seems useless to me. In reality might does make is. If you violate my property rights, I will beat your face in. That's all that matters. yes, it boils down to that, OR you can be logical and reason ahead of time, "Oh, that's somebody's property and they might beat my face in if I violate it." Natural rights are not arbitrary, but coherently logical that any one person can discover such truths on their own. That's why it's called natural (intellectual) law. When critical thinking is being applying on human nature these become self-evident truths that entail peaceful co-existence. But you seem to be saying instead of thinking ahead of time and having the low-time preference for far-sightedness, then you need to know each and every time that walking onto anothers property may lead to a persons face being beaten in. Good luck with that venture. Do you have to learn that everyday? I guess this is why Pavlov's law doesn't always work. hmm, is it really a law?
You seem to be suggesting that your "natural rights" will restrict how a person can defend their property. I'm afraid it isn't up to you what a person does to defend their property.
Yes you do need to know ahead of time if a person will kill you for walking on their property. They make the rules. If you don't like their rules, don't go near them or their property. It's too simple.
tacoface: It's too simple.
It's too simple.
indeed
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