How many times do I have to exlain this to you Juan.

P1) A does not have "authority" (by which I assume you mean a legitimate moral claim to use) over B.
---

C1) Therefore, B must have "authority" over B (legitimate moral claim to use, not mere ontological fact of determination)

This does not follow, except allowing for your hidden premise:

P2) A or B must have authority over B

 

 

Juan:

I don't think I made any value judgment. Do you mind telling what value judgment you are referring to ?

As I said, "one has no authority" is basically saying that one ought to not command another.  That is a value judgment.

Juan:

Do some people have authority ? - if yes, please explain why. Divine authority maybe ? Or is it the will of the majority ? or ?

I'm not saying one way or the other.  AGAIN, I'm just saying that you have not demonstrated anything regarding what men ought to do.

Juan:

Well, from the fact that natural authority doesn't exist it follows that nobody is justified in commanding people.

Such a statement would imply that there is not necessarily something normatively positive about commanding people, but it would NOT imply that there is necessarily something normatively negative about commanding people.

Juan:

I don't think so. I'm stating that doing what's wrong makes you evil, not stupid. I could have said "X is evil so you ought not to do it - but of course you can be evil if you wish"

You said, "doing X is not a good idea so you should not do it."  Saying something is not a good idea is basically saying that it's stupid.

Juan, I know "mutual pursuit of truth" is not really your bag, but could you drop the eristic approach for once and take a little more care in understanding what I'm saying and not just writing the first thing that comes to your head?

Lilburne:

Taras Smereka:

Again right/wrong being reduced to smart/stupid...

 

Pretty much.

So then most "natural rights" theories are consequentialist?  It's right if it's smart (conducive to ends) and it's wrong if it's stupid (not conducive to ends)?

Again, not quite. Its about respecting the nature of others, we know what human nature is because of the consequence of those policies, ie what is pro-human vs what is anti-human.

Romantivist:

 

The only is/ought divide is the most basic one of all: man is alive, therefore he ought to continue living. I'm not sure what's controversial about this divide. We all have crossed it and will cross it with every action we take other than that of suicide. Calling this a divide is like calling an anthill a mountain with a gaping chasm at its peak.

Right, life is the fundamental value from which all others are derived (according to Rand). It cannot be derived from any other value; it is the foundation of Rand's ethics. It is a first principle. It is not derived from facts.

I know the purpose of your post is "its a principle that practically everyone accepts, so who cares?"

Well, people who are interested in epistemology and ethics care. Also, there are people who commit suicide, and may disagree. More importantly, action taken that extends my life is not an admission of life as a first principle. Life may be merely a means to some unobserved end.

Lilburne:

As I said, "one has no authority" is basically saying that one ought to not command another. That is a value judgment.

Sorry, I disagree. It seems you are parsing what I say into what you want to hear - and adding the word "ought" so that you can complain about it. Do you mind addressing what I say, not your straw man ?

L:

J:

Do some people have authority ? - if yes, please explain why. Divine authority maybe ? Or is it the will of the majority ? or ?

I'm not saying one way or the other.

Right - you are basically saying nothing because you don't have an argument. What you are doing is evading a simple question that shows that your position is untenable.

AGAIN, I'm just saying that you have not demonstrated anything regarding what men ought to do.

And again, please stop introducing the word 'ought' - it's not needed. Next, realize that either some people have authority or not. If you doubt the fact that authority doesn't exist, please show examples of authority (other than might-makes-right). You see, you are claiming that flying pigs exist. So I think it's fair for me to ask you to bring forth evidence of flying pigs - or evidence of 'natural' authority.

L:

J:

Well, from the fact that natural authority doesn't exist it follows that nobody is justified in commanding people.

Such a statement would imply that there is not necessarily something normatively positive about commanding people, but it would NOT imply that there is necessarily something normatively negative about commanding people.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying. Care to rephrase it in simpler (and more meaningful) terms ?

You said, "doing X is not a good idea so you should not do it." Saying something is not a good idea is basically saying that it's stupid.

It was a figure of speech and I rephrased it anyway. Why do you bring it back again instead of addressing the rephrased version ?

Juan, I know "mutual pursuit of truth" is not really your bag, but could you drop the eristic approach for once and take a little more care in understanding what I'm saying and not just writing the first thing that comes to your head?

I don't think I'm writing the first thing that comes to my head. Also if "mutual pursuit of truth" was your bag, you wouldn't have suggested that I'm not arguing in good faith ? It didn't sound that polite. Not that I would complain anyway ....

sorry zefreak, you and your sophisms are on ignore.

edit : but for the record, remember that your objection "B has no authority over B" is sheer nonsense.

Juan:

sorry zefreak, you and your sophisms are on ignore.

edit : but for the record, remember that your objection "B has no authority over B" is sheer nonsense.

If it sounds like nonsense it is because of the terminology used (yours). I would have said neither A nor B has a property right in B (property being legitimate exclusive use).

Sorry, putting it in terms of property is bad terminology, and worse, the nonsense FULLY remains. B DOES have a property right in B, contrary to what you might think.

JonBostwick:

Again, not quite. Its about respecting the nature of others, we know what human nature is because of the consequence of those policies, ie what is pro-human vs what is anti-human.

We can discover the nature of others by exploring matters of "is".  The question is: why is it that we ought to respect the nature of others?

Lilburne:

I don't know how any deductive natural rights theory could follow anything other than the following formula:

__ is __, therefore __ is __, therefore __ is __, [...] therefore __ should __.

But how can any deductive argument like this derive a "should" from an "is"?

For any given natural right, can anyone fill in the blanks of the above formula, and explain to me how it makes sense?

Or if a natural rights theory rests on another kind of model, can someone explain to me how it is formed?

Short answer:

They don't. Most, like Juan, will simply try to assert that it isn't a problem because the state of nature is how things should be - which is a strange naturalistic fallacy.

 

Others will admit that they can't, however, and merely assert that the natural rights theory is an axiom to which people should assume this is the best way and move on from there.

 

I can respect the latter because it's honest and logically consistent; the former, however, is neither.  

Juan:

Sorry, I disagree.

...and then you continue to talk past me.  I stopped being polite because being patient wasn't making your responses any more coherent, and I was hoping frankness would make you slow down and read/respond more thoughtfully.  But it's plain that it won't, so I'm not going to try anymore.  You can continue to pepper this thread with your offhand, clipped responses (like you generally do); that's fine.  I'd just rather discuss the question with people who are actually willing to engage.

Lilburne:

I stopped being polite because being patient wasn't making your responses any more coherent, and I was hoping frankness would make you slow down and read/respond more thoughtfully.

Well, in my opinion it is you the one who doesn't get it. I don't mind your being slightly impolite or not. But your remark sounded rather hypocritical.

I'd just rather discuss the question with people who are actually willing to engage.

Translation : I'd just rather talk to other people who already believe in the ought-is dogma. That probably shows how interested in truth you are.

Rochester, given that you are unable to understand the difference between humans and dogs, and how that difference affects moral theories, you might want to think twice before posting.

Juan:

Rochester, given that you are unable to understand the difference between humans and dogs, and how that difference affects moral theories, you might want to think twice before posting.

Lilburne:

So then most "natural rights" theories are consequentialist?  It's right if it's smart (conducive to ends) and it's wrong if it's stupid (not conducive to ends)?

They are either consequentialist* or they are not logic-based (i.e., they are purely persuasive). Or, if they attempt to base their non-consequentialist argument on logic, they are erroneous (see next post).

*Defined in the very broadest sense

Lilburne:

The question is: why is it that we ought to respect the nature of others?

There is no reason to assume the answer will be the same for all people. If we assume a for-purpose ought ("ought...in order to"), then bridging the is-ought gap is trivial, as I showed briefly but completely here. That is consequentialism, and it can bridge the is-ought gap without breaking a sweat. As I understand, universal consequentialist results that are scientifically formalized and proven become the domain of praxeology.

Morality of the type that ignores consequences (in other words, purpose-free ought) is personal morality. I can decide in my own mind, "I won't lie, even if it has good consequences, because I refuse to be that kind of person - End of discussion!" That is not logical, but it is fine because it's a personal choice. But insofar as morality is not personal it's nothing more than a persuasion tactic to get others to do what you want.

Such tactics may employ logical-sounding arguments, but unless those arguments are based on consequences they cannot carry any logical weight. People may agree with non-logical arguments for ethics and decide to adopt them, but that is simply persuasion. People may also agree with logic-based arguments that are illogical, but that is simply confusion.

Bottom line, we can only say that we have convinced someone to adopt an ethic on purely logical grounds if that ethic (and/or the reason for adopting it) is consequentialist.

perhaps 'oughts' are emergent properties, thus denying that an 'ought' can come from a number of 'is's would be to make the fallacy of composition ?

 

Lilburne:

JonBostwick:

Again, not quite. Its about respecting the nature of others, we know what human nature is because of the consequence of those policies, ie what is pro-human vs what is anti-human.

We can discover the nature of others by exploring matters of "is".  The question is: why is it that we ought to respect the nature of others?

How can you discover the nature of others and explore what "is" if a person doesn't respect human nature and thus corrupts it.  Like any experiment to corrupt human nature and thus what "is" to be explored, the experiment will only provide false conclusions.  

For example, a person is doing a biological experiment on how well maple trees grow, but during the experiment somebody sneaks in at night and throws posion on the maple trees.  It wasn't enough poison to kill the trees and somehow they overcame the poison and lived.  Yet the trees grew very slowly.  The scientist concludes to the world the speed of growth of maple trees.  Meanwhile there is that issue with the person tainting the experiment and not allowing the growth rate of maple trees to be discovered untainted by corruption to the experiment.  There was no respect for the experiment and therefore no way of knowing the facts of the maple tree growth rate - the what is.  Imagine the deviance involved in when the scientist him or her self doesn't respect and honor what "is" and thereby corrupting the experiment.  The conclusions are not only false, but an intentional falsity by said scientist.  I find that to be even more morally reprehensible as to what "is" than the person sneaking in at night even though both end up with false results.

The intellect apprehends the truth and what is (being).  But to not take note of the experiment of what is of human nature and allow human nature to be corrupted by disrespect, then of course what is will not be discovered.  Life is a journey and the telos of happiness is open-ended.  There are certain natural rights that allow each person to explore this telos (each person, not a biased number excluding others).  Therefore you won't even find out what is - you CAN'T "discover the nature of others by exploring matters of 'is'" if you don't respect and I add honor others or even yourself.  If you don't respect what is in the experiment and corrupt it the experiment fails and there is NO exploring of what is.  I say honor cause that's apprehending the identity of what is.  So if you don't respect human nature, then you can't even explore what is.  And what you do therefore is not only reason a way to keep yourself from removing the divide you destroy what is.  You contradict not only the divide by this illogic, but you remove not only "ought" but the "is" and destroy all of human nature (being that's what the exploring is about).

And from the looks of it, agreeing with Juan, you and zefreak, by using your reason to keep up a fictional divide will not even be able to discover what is.  You destroy the very experiment that you are trying to devise.  It's like in "Of Mice and Men", Lennie loved the rabbit so much he squeezed it too death and killed the very thing he loved.

I know this is long, but I tried to fit in as much as possible since I will not be able to respond later.

would parents have "natural authority" over their child since their child's life comes from the parents? If a parent exercised no authority over a child, what would be the consequence?

There is a composition and thus not a separation between is/ought.  I can see a distinction, thus, reason can divide the two, but distinction is not the same as separation.  Thus to use what you said if it denied that mind is emergent from brain cells is to deny the mind all together, but then what is doing the denying?  To separate and destroy one - destroys them both.  It backfires.

Did I use the concepts you put forth in the correct sense that you were trying to use them?