yes. im not asserting its true, but its a possible explanation. i took it to start with lilburne was looking for possible explanations.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
nirgrahamUK: yes. im not asserting its true, but its a possible explanation. i took it to start with lilburne was looking for possible explanations.
I came to the same conclusion before I read your post. By inclining towards the "is" and turning a blind eye, therefore, disrespecting the "is" what ends up happening is the "is" becomes destroyed. Thus the very thing loved is squeezed and killed. And how will what "is" be explored if what "is" isn't respected and honored. It's a poor experiment to not respect and honor what "is" by any scientist. It would be a manipulation and corruption of the experiment and instead false conclusions not based on what "is" will be the only results.
"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
Can you explain how an ought can be an emergent property of an is? There are at least several theories regarding consciousness as an emergent property of sychronious synapse firings. It's not a mere assertion.
Wilderness, is and ought are two very different concepts. Can you explain why they are entertwined? I think you are spouting nonsense but I'm interested if you can even explain what you think you are thinking.
By the way, introducing purpose in the guise of an if-then statement does not bridge the is-ought divide. Observe.
P1) Zefreak desires to use his time productively (is)---
C1) Zefreak ought to stop posting in this thread because nobody will be persuaded either way (ought)
Hidden premise..
P2) Zefreak ought to achieve what he desires (hidden ought)
I am still waiting to see a single logical derivation of an ought from an is statement. The lack of critical thinking in this thread is depressing.
“Elections are Futures Markets in Stolen Property.” - H. L. Mencken
That brick wall is in front of me. It ought to slow my car down.
"The best way to bail out the economy is with liberty, not with federal reserve notes." - pairunoyd
"The vision of the Austrian must be greater than the blindness of the sheeple." - pairunoyd
pairunoyd: That brick wall is in front of me. It ought to slow my car down.
You win!
edit: before anyone takes it seriously, he is conflating two uses of the word ought. He is using ought to mean natural expectation, whereas the ought that is relevant is normative, or what should be.
it is my move in chess. i have only a king.
i ought to move the king one step in any direction that would not put me in check, or resign.
nirgrahamUK: (is-proposition) it is my move in chess. (is-proposition) i have only a king. (ought-conclusion) i ought to move the king one step in any direction that would not put me in check, or resign.
(is-proposition) it is my move in chess. (is-proposition) i have only a king.
(ought-conclusion) i ought to move the king one step in any direction that would not put me in check, or resign.
hidden ought-proposition: "I ought to play by the rules of chess", "I ought to play chess", there are probably others.
zefreak:hidden ought-proposition: "I ought to play by the rules of chess", "I ought to play chess", there are probably others.
and what oughts are you presuming in this line of inquiry?
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."
nirgrahamUK: it is my move in chess. i have only a king. i ought to move the king one step in any direction that would not put me in check, or resign.
Would you then say making good moves in chess is moral and making bad moves is immoral?
Again, this conception reduces right/wrong to smart/stupid, and makes natural rights theories just as consequentialist as the theories to which they are generally thought to be contrary.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Juan:All this is simply quibbling. When things are not put in terms of ought, the amoralists rewrite them in terms of ought so as to strawman their opponents.
I am NOT an amoralist. I believe taxation is evil, and I hate state power with all my heart. I believe in morality, just not your contrived deductive conception of it.
Lilburne: Would you then say making good moves in chess is moral and making bad moves is immoral?
not at all.
morality is quite different from chess. if i make an illegitimate chess move, it is not morally illegitimate, it is simply chess illegitimate.
Lilburne:I am NOT an amoralist.
I believe taxation is evil, and I hate state power with all my heart.
I believe in morality, just not your contrived deductive conception of it.
That seems like mere opportunism, though. If what you're saying is men ought to do what they see fit as benefiting them best, I'd say yes to that, but this often contradicts the theory of "natural rights."
existence is elsewhere
Lilburne: Juan:All this is simply quibbling. When things are not put in terms of ought, the amoralists rewrite them in terms of ought so as to strawman their opponents. I am NOT an amoralist. I believe taxation is evil, and I hate state power with all my heart. I believe in morality, just not your contrived deductive conception of it.
I can understand what you're saying here. For people like us who are not absolutely convinced of the typical libertarian-Anarchist natural rights theory, we come across as amoral to anyone that does believe it, though we don't see ourselves that way others like Juan do.
It is a fine distinction that often gets muddled between the lines of someone questioning the concepts of morality and someone who rejects it all together, but it does exist, Juan.
Juan:Rochester, so far your grasp on 'morality' allows you to attack humans when they don't act in ways you like - case in point your rant re:animal rights. I don't think your position deserves to be called morality - it is indeed mostly personal preference.
And yes, my morality is based off of personal preference. You know it's really the only difference between our views of morality; I actually admit that the morality I see is only my own.
Oh, Rothbard must be rolling in his grave.
Lilburne:How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Only a consequentialist natural rights theory could ever cross the is/ought divide. However, natural rights hardly need to cross the is/ought divide if they are merely a concept used for persuasive purposes.
A man needn't cross the is/ought divide to persuade a woman that she "ought" to sleep with him.
In the same way, a non-consequentialist natural rights advocate need not cross the is/ought divide in order to win others to his way of thinking. If he tries through logic, he is doomed to fail, but that won't always stop him - some value spurious logical reasoning over eloquent non-logical persuasion. (I believe you are trying to persuade through science, which is fine.)
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Juan:I believe taxation is evil, and I hate state power with all my heart. You don't believe it. You 'feel' it.
You're right, actually; I should have said, "I feel taxation is evil." Although, contrary to your implication, there would have been nothing deficient about such a statement.
Juan:You've no real argument to show that taxation is evil.
I don't need such an argument, any more than I need an "argument" to regard a mugging I see in a back alley as evil.
Juan:By the way, the state is not the only institution which treats people as means, not ends. I believe in morality, just not your contrived deductive conception of it. My conception is not contrived. What surely is contrived is Hume's skepticism which you seem to follow to the letter.
Heh. You accuse me of doctrinaire Humeanism right after you spout off doctrinaire Kantianism.
I don't follow Hume to the letter. Like with every thinker I read, I take from him what makes sense to me.
Wilmot of Rochester:It is a fine distinction that often gets muddled between the lines of someone questioning the concepts of morality and someone who rejects it all together, but it does exist, Juan.
What baffles me about people like Juan is that it's actually a pretty clear-cut distinction. Believing in individual subjective morality is not the same thing as believing in no morality; it's that simple. That he can characterize someone who forthrightly hates state aggression from the bottom of his heart as "close to amoralism" just shows how besotted with the "Ethics of Liberty" Kool-Aid he is.
Rothbard himself said he hates the state "deep in his belly". It's a shame he felt the need to convolute that sentiment with extreme moral rationalism.
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