Thank you for your participation and interest in the Mises Community. This software platform has seen its day, however, and so is now closed. We are redoing our entire site, so look for some exciting developments by the end of the year. Thank you for your support of Austrian economics, liberty, and peace.

Mises ill-definition of Natural Law, why?

rated by 0 users
This post has 221 Replies | 14 Followers

Posts 280

Points 5,590

Zavoi replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 10:44 PM

rated by 0 users

Liberté:
I deny that there is cognitive content to normative claims.

Much ink has been spilled over what a "normative claim" actually is, so let me ask a different question:

Do you believe that it is possible for you to tell me a true statement that is inconsistent with a particular action of mine? (I.e., a statement such that if I do action A, I would thereby demonstrate that I don't believe the statement.)

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:18 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

So there is a person in the argument? You are a person? You post. Thanks for proving Argumentation Ethics. Humans Act.

Good Night.

How does posting prove Argumentation Ethics?

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:20 PM

rated by 0 users

Posting assumes human action.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:23 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Posting assumes human action.

I didn't ask why it proves human action. I asked why it proves argumentation ethics.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:27 PM

rated by 0 users

You got your answer.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:31 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

You got your answer.

No, actually I didn't, because human action and argumentation ethics are two different things. I asked how posting proves, as you claim, argumentation ethics. Your answer didn't even mention argumentation ethics, and instead referred to human action.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 35

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:34 PM

rated by 0 users

if you knew argumentation ethics then you wouldn't be asking me questions.

I already gave you the answer. Don't bother me with any more questions right now. I don't feel like teaching you anymore.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 35

Posts 2,221

Points 34,090

Nitroadict replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:39 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

if you knew argumentation ethics then you wouldn't be asking me questions.

I already gave you the answer. Don't bother me with any more questions right now. I don't feel like teaching you anymore.

Throwing up an iron curtain ain't exactly helping, either.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:43 PM

rated by 0 users

Who said I had to help anymore? There comes a time in every person's life that they begin to learn some things on their own instead of finding the need to ask somebody else for advice. The old teach a man to fish adage.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 35

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:47 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:
if you knew argumentation ethics then you wouldn't be asking me questions.

Translation: "You don't agree with my position, therefore you must not understand my position."

wilderness:
I already gave you the answer.

Again, you did no such thing. I asked how posting, as you claim, proves argumentation ethics. You responded by saying that posting assumes human action. And, argumentation ethics and human action are two different things.

wilderness:
I don't feel like teaching you anymore.

Would you qualify this as condescending?

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 20

Posts 2,221

Points 34,090

Nitroadict replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:48 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Who said I had to help anymore? There comes a time in every person's life that they begin to learn some things on their own instead of finding the need to ask somebody else for advice. The old teach a man to fish adage.

No one, obviously, but it might've been a missed opportunity, otherwise.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:50 PM

rated by 0 users

1 - No need to translate. I said what I said word for word.

2 - It is not condescending. I truly do not feel like teaching you anymore. You are asking me questions looking for knowledgeable answers. I assume you do want knowledgeable answers or else you wouldn't be asking me questions. I don't feel like letting you pick from my brain anymore.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:51 PM

rated by 0 users

Teaching a person how to fish isn't a missed opportunity. It is a gained opportunity for the other person. They don't need to depend on me anymore they can go and get their own food. It is a very self-reliant thing to do in my opinion.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 5

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Tue, Apr 27 2010 11:54 PM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Who said I had to help anymore? There comes a time in every person's life that they begin to learn some things on their own instead of finding the need to ask somebody else for advice. The old teach a man to fish adage.

You are helping me wilderness. I couldn't ask for a better exemplification of the incoherence of natural law doctrines than your bizarre, language-mangling arguments.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:03 AM

rated by 0 users

Lilburne,

I'll teach you how to fish someday. It's a great way to realize that a person naturally thinks on their own and valuing the lives of other people comes so naturally. One learns how to appreciate the finer things in life. The little details and the vastness of nature where the individual is able to think on their own in the world and naturally find peace in their life. Fishing is awesome. There's a good way to tie knots so the line stays on the bait. Yes, valuing life, liberty, and private property is the natural way to go.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 35

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:16 AM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:

Lilburne,

I'll teach you how to fish someday. It's a great way to realize that a person naturally thinks on their own and valuing the lives of other people comes so naturally. One learns how to appreciate the finer things in life. The little details and the vastness of nature where the individual is able to think on their own in the world and naturally find peace in their life. Fishing is awesome. There's a good way to tie knots so the line stays on the bait. Yes, valuing life, liberty, and private property is the natural way to go.

I'll pass, wilderness. Rather I'll just try valuing the existence of a plate of lemon pepper cod on my table, and wait for it to magically appear.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,914

Points 70,630

wilderness replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:17 AM

rated by 0 users

Ok starve yourself. It's your life. Since I'm a bit giving by nature I'll let you in on a little secret, loop the line around itself a few times and then pull it through the hole when you go to tighten it up.

"Do not put out the fire of the spirit." 1The 5:19

| Post Points: 5

Posts 1,649

Points 28,420

E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:28 AM

rated by 0 users

Lilburne, can you address my last post here please? The constant bickering between you and wilderness reminds me of something I said to scineram once to the effect of, "If Austrian economics and libertarianism are such nonsense, why do you have 2,000 snide contrarian posts here?"

Whether the whole "you arguing just proves my point" thing is right or not seems rather spurious anyhow. The application is always in response to crime, "You stole my candy bar, now you can't coherently object to being punished proportionally".

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:35 AM

rated by 0 users

wilderness:
2 - It is not condescending. I truly do not feel like teaching you anymore. You are asking me questions looking for knowledgeable answers. I assume you do want knowledgeable answers or else you wouldn't be asking me questions. I don't feel like letting you pick from my brain anymore.

With regard to this subject, I don't think you have any knowledgeable answers, because I think you are utterly confused. I'm asking you questions in order to get you to make fully evident the incoherence of your position, so as to prevent you from spreading your confusion to young, impressionable libertarians.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 5

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 1:24 AM

rated by 0 users

E. R. Olovetto:

Grayson Lilburne:
Hoppe attempts to deduce that private property ethics can't be argued against from the definition of argumentation. Argumentation ethics is indeed deductive.

This sounds good, but I don't think it is actually correct. Argumentation ethics is a negative proof. I'm sure you are familiar with performative contradiction. It is the same thing as Mises saying that nobody can deny that humans act, because that denial is itself an action.

Premise 1: Denying action is an action. Premise 2: The existence of an action disproves any denial of action. Conclusion: Therefore nobody can truthfully deny that humans act. The conclusion is contained in the premises. It's a deduction.

E. R. Olovetto:
I think Kinsella's estoppel reformulation is much more convincing as to the validity of argumentation ethics.

Sorry, not yet familiar with it.

E. R. Olovetto:
Isn't the problem then though that we aren't talking about the suitability of the sadist or the average man in achieving their own preferred ends. We're asking whether the sadist's ("criminal's" sounds better to me) actions are in line with those we say are vital to human society and the process of civilization, and this is where AE comes in.

AE comes in to convince non-sadists and non-ascetics what social arrangement will best suit their ends: namely the contractual society.

That post of mine you quoted wasn't in response to your post which you linked to. It was in response to the "dodge" image you posted.

E. R. Olovetto:
If you really think your case against argumentation ethics is that solid, please stop arguing against wilderness and spend your time making a Mises Daily on it or something.

First you insist that I formulate a position of argumentation ethics. Then very soon after I comply with your insistence, you are already asking me to write a Mises Daily on it? Seems kind of demanding...

E. R. Olovetto:
When what I say is baselessly rejected out of hand it's pretty off-putting

Do you mean like if somebody responded to your analysis by writing "hurt-piece"?

Anyway, I appreciate the relatively civil tone of this post of yours that I'm responding to, so thank you for that.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 5

Posts 3,415

Points 56,650

filc replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 1:48 AM

rated by 0 users

I don't particularly care to get entangled into this debate but I do want to clarify one thing about argumentation ethics. Someone said it has nothing to do with HumN Action. That may be the case for them, but for the people who created and who believe in argumentation ethics it is known to be a direct direvative of HA. It would be wise to remember that moving forward.

argumentation ethics has to do with praxology according to it's inventor's. Idk if it was being disputed or if it was just being discredited outright. I just wanted to clarify. Most of the people I know who attempt to denounce argumentation ethics aren't actually doing so at all, but instead are attacking straw men. Not intetionally though, simply out of lack of understanding.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 1:54 AM

rated by 0 users

filc:
I do want to clarify one thing about argumentation ethics. Someone said it has nothing to do with HumN Action.

Hi filc,

I don't think anybody said that. I said that the two things are not synonymous, not that the former has nothing to do with the latter.

Take care. :)

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,415

Points 56,650

filc replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 2:11 AM

rated by 0 users

My mistake. :) Have a swell evening!

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 2:14 AM

rated by 0 users

You too!

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 5

Posts 635

Points 13,150

Vichy Army replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 10:23 AM

rated by 0 users

Do you believe that it is possible for you to tell me a true statement that is inconsistent with a particular action of mine?

I believe it is possible for you to take actions based on beliefs about means, and that these beliefs will be in some extent mistaken. But, of course, all knowledge is mistaken or incomplete to some degree or another, there is no 'perfect efficiency'. Furthermore, since action is dependent on the actual values and actual beliefs you have, such a theoretical construction can have no relevence for action.

Read my post here, especially the quote at the bottom by Richard Joyce from his book The Myth of Morality.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

| Post Points: 35

Posts 527

Points 8,490

twistedbydsign99 replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 10:37 AM

rated by 0 users

Liberté:

Do you believe that it is possible for you to tell me a true statement that is inconsistent with a particular action of mine?

I believe it is possible for you to take actions based on beliefs about means, and that these beliefs will be in some extent mistaken. But, of course, all knowledge is mistaken or incomplete to some degree or another, there is no 'perfect efficiency'. Furthermore, since action is dependent on the actual values and actual beliefs you have, such a theoretical construction can have no relevence for action.

Read my post here, especially the quote at the bottom by Richard Joyce from his book The Myth of Morality.

So if my criteria for buying a car was I wanted a blue car, and I bought a car that everyone on earth would agree is blue, are you saying I am incorrect in some way?

| Post Points: 20

Posts 635

Points 13,150

Vichy Army replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 10:46 AM

rated by 0 users

So if my criteria for buying a car was I wanted a blue car, and I bought a car that everyone on earth would agree is blue, are you saying I am incorrect in some way?

What does this have to do with anything?

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

| Post Points: 20

Posts 527

Points 8,490

twistedbydsign99 replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 11:28 AM

rated by 0 users

Liberté:

So if my criteria for buying a car was I wanted a blue car, and I bought a car that everyone on earth would agree is blue, are you saying I am incorrect in some way?

What does this have to do with anything?

Remember when you said "Furthermore, since action is dependent on the actual values and actual beliefs you have, such a theoretical construction can have no relevence for action." one post ago? Well not all knowledge is incomplete, my example shows that my reasons for action can be complete and valid. My knowledge for blueness is right on.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 635

Points 13,150

Vichy Army replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Well not all knowledge is incomplete, my example shows that my reasons for action can be complete and valid. My knowledge for blueness is right on.

Um, no. Read Kant, maybe? Or Occam?

Knowledge is never 'complete', except in the sense of definitional things. What 'everyone in the world agrees on' does not prove anything in an absolute sense. And, in terms of probability, (and to quote a play by Henrik Ibsen) the majority is always wrong. Error and systemic ignorance are ineradicable features of human nature. If people were not systemically ignorant they would not act.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

| Post Points: 20

Posts 366

Points 5,635

yessir replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:02 PM

rated by 0 users

If you guys don't believe in natural law, what is your argument for anarchy?

| Post Points: 20

Posts 527

Points 8,490

twistedbydsign99 replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:11 PM

rated by 0 users

Liberté:

Well not all knowledge is incomplete, my example shows that my reasons for action can be complete and valid. My knowledge for blueness is right on.

Um, no. Read Kant, maybe? Or Occam?

Knowledge is never 'complete', except in the sense of definitional things. What 'everyone in the world agrees on' does not prove anything in an absolute sense. And, in terms of probability, (and to quote a play by Henrik Ibsen) the majority is always wrong. Error and systemic ignorance are ineradicable features of human nature. If people were not systemically ignorant they would not act.

Everyone agreeing does actually prove something in the absolute sense, the class of "blue" is a human conception so as absolute as you can get is the set of all humans that can conceive of blue (sorry blind people). Further the fact that we can distinguish it means that it is an objective classification.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 3,260

Points 61,905

Daniel James Sanchez replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:19 PM

rated by 0 users

yessir:
"If you guys don't believe in natural law, what is your argument for anarchy?"

Economic science, the harmony of interests, and the fact that I see no reason why, contrary to Mises' minarchism, Mises's analysis regarding the provision of every other good wouldn't extend to the provision of defense.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume

| Post Points: 20

Posts 366

Points 5,635

yessir replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:32 PM

rated by 0 users

so it is purely utilitarian?

| Post Points: 35

Posts 527

Points 8,490

twistedbydsign99 replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:41 PM

rated by 0 users

yessir:

so it is purely utilitarian?

It is for me. Conforming with natural laws is a very good way to prosper :)

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,850

Points 85,810

Andrew Cain replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:43 PM

rated by 0 users

'Conforming with natural laws is a very good way to prosper'

If you value the laws for their own sake then you stop being a utilitarian.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

| Post Points: 20

Posts 527

Points 8,490

twistedbydsign99 replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:49 PM

rated by 0 users

Andrew Cain:

'Conforming with natural laws is a very good way to prosper'

If you value the laws for their own sake then you stop being a utilitarian.

Thats what the man said. But to know the natural law, you must first be utilitarian.

| Post Points: 20

Posts 4,850

Points 85,810

Andrew Cain replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 12:56 PM

rated by 0 users

'Thats what the man said. But to know the natural law, you must first be utilitarian.'

Oh does not need to know effects in order to value something. One can be a deontologist.

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

| Post Points: 20

Posts 527

Points 8,490

twistedbydsign99 replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 1:01 PM

rated by 0 users

Andrew Cain:

'Thats what the man said. But to know the natural law, you must first be utilitarian.'

Oh does not need to know effects in order to value something. One can be a deontologist.

What would be the deontologists method to determining if nature proliferates a being that perserves life or not? There are gaps in the tree of knowledge given the axioms you know so far. Apriori truths are across such a gap.

| Post Points: 5

Posts 635

Points 13,150

Vichy Army replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 1:21 PM

rated by 0 users

Everyone agreeing does actually prove something in the absolute sense, the class of "blue" is a human conception so as absolute as you can get is the set of all humans that can conceive of blue (sorry blind people). Further the fact that we can distinguish it means that it is an objective classification.

No, it does not. While I am not trying to deny knowledge as such, there is still uncertainty in any reference to the real world. There is no 'objective classification' of blue, there is a thing you perceive and title as blue; whether this in fact corresponds to what others perceive may be beyond reasonable doubt (or at least beyond reasonable quarreling) but it is not something one can remove uncertainty from.

Convention is not an epistemelogical argument. It is a practical one. The two domains are not identical.

“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini
"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre

| Post Points: 20

Posts 527

Points 8,490

twistedbydsign99 replied on Wed, Apr 28 2010 1:34 PM

rated by 0 users

Liberté:

Everyone agreeing does actually prove something in the absolute sense, the class of "blue" is a human conception so as absolute as you can get is the set of all humans that can conceive of blue (sorry blind people). Further the fact that we can distinguish it means that it is an objective classification.

No, it does not. While I am not trying to deny knowledge as such, there is still uncertainty in any reference to the real world. There is no 'objective classification' of blue, there is a thing you perceive and title as blue; whether this in fact corresponds to what others perceive may be beyond reasonable doubt (or at least beyond reasonable quarreling) but it is not something one can remove uncertainty from.

Convention is not an epistemelogical argument. It is a practical one. The two domains are not identical.

The objective classification of blue does exist because it can be taken to aribrary error, you name the error you want I'll tell you how many experiments to run. That is the nature of knowing an objective fact or thing. The fact that I can remove as much uncertainty as you specify means that it doesn't exist. Its the reverse statement of the objective existence of blue. Uncertainty does exist for some things, such as does a certain computer program halt.

| Post Points: 5

Previous | Next

Page 4 of 6 (222 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > | RSS

Mises ill-definition of Natural Law, why?

rated by 0 users This post has 221 Replies | 14 Followers

rated by 0 users
This post has 221 Replies | 14 Followers