Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought

As I've expressed in other threads, it is incoherent to derive "ought" solely from "is".  But that is not to say reason has no role in issues of morality.

For example, I can start from the axiom "men ought to not incinerate babies."  This axiom emerges from an involuntary revulsion against the notion of incinerating babies.  From this axiom, I can spin out the following valid deduction.

1. Men ought to not incinerate babies.
2. Bombing Nagasaki is an incident of incinerating babies.
3. Therefore, men ought to not bomb Nagasaki.

This kind of ethical casuistry is perfectly valid, because the "ought" in the conclusion is derived from an "ought" in the premise.  The "is" only serves a supporting and clarifying role, and does not miraculously generate the "ought" all by itself.

I guess that a new way to 'win' an argument is to start a lot of threads making the same unfounded assertion ?

Lilburne, if you mean that we should - for instance - state the non-aggression principle as an axiom and make no attempt to logically prove it, I agree. I propose that we start from the NAP, and not try to a priori logically get people to accept it, but to make other persuasive arguments to get people to accept it on consequentialist grounds (very broadly defined to include emotional, religious, offending the senses of empathy and justice, and other psychic consequences). We do have a very strong case on consequentialist grounds, and combined with the easy-to-understand concept of "(enforced) monopolies are bad," I see a highly efficient path to winning people over. It has worked great in my personal conversations with bartenders, guy sitting next to me on the plane, etc. so far.

Once we come to grips with the fact that what we are facing is a challenge of persuasion, and choose tools more suited to that challenge, we will be more likely to succeed. Not the a priori logic of natural law theories, which would only convince logical sticklers like me (except that no conception I have seen is logically meaningful), but instead devices that are more effective for persuasion. People care about consequences, including the consequence of feeling good or bad about one's way of life and system of social order.

It is true that people don't often like to think of their actions as (morally) consequence-oriented, so perhaps there is a better way to present it, but from the standpoint of those who already hold to libertarian ideals I think there is strategic value in noting that everything is - broadly defined - based on consequences. Also, the scientific approach has potential. Science is sort of the new religion for a lot of people, so findings that NAP-like constructs are hardwired into us would go over well with a great many folks.

(Although, I'm still not sure it's not moot to talk about ethics when it's really the market that will decide in the end, if we get to anarchy. Or will ethics play a role in getting there?)

I know its not philosophically-honest-systematic yada yada yada. but i consider something like the NAP axiomatic in that, the reverse of it leads to absurdities. If we say, The initiation of force is always and everywhere justified, of course thats absurd. We can't even imagine that statement being true in our reality given how people act. It's like some of the axioms of economics such as, When two people trade they act on preferences, reverse wants etc. The reverse is also absurd, the absurdities of an economy where people engage in trade because they don't even value it.

AJ:

Lilburne, if you mean that we should - for instance - state the non-aggression principle as an axiom and make no attempt to logically prove it, I agree. I propose that we start from the NAP, and not try to a priori logically get people to accept it, but to make other persuasive arguments to get people to accept it on consequentialist grounds (very broadly defined to include emotional, religious, offending the senses of empathy and justice, and other psychic consequences). We do have a very strong case on consequentialist grounds, and combined with the easy-to-understand concept of "(enforced) monopolies are bad," I see a highly efficient path to winning people over. It has worked great in my personal conversations with bartenders, guy sitting next to me on the plane, etc. so far.

I'm actually not a big fan of arguing the NAP at all, and especially not on consequentialist grounds.  I believe most people already have a basic adherence to the NAP (believing that in general stealing, assaulting, and enslaving are wrong) but either don't fully realize how they do actually support stealing, assaulting, and enslaving or regard that when the state does those things its a necessary evil.  If the NAP is not already accepted on a basic level (if they are a psychotic, a thug, a brainwashed moral nihilist, or a brainwashed state-makes-right advocate), then it's pretty much hopeless.  The method for dealing with those types is not persuasion, but only to defeat them in persuading others.

With most people, I think its a matter of arguing from (not for) the NAP that they already for the most part adhere to in the following manner (which is adapted from what I wrote another thread)...

First I would ask the statist who is otherwise a decent person whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong.  If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving "ought" from "ought" (see the OP above) and showing him that he actually is promoting stealing, assault, and enslavement.

If he then objects that state stealing, state assault, and state enslavement are necessary evils, I would introduce him to Austrian economics to show him that they are not in fact necessary.

I'm actually not a big fan of arguing the NAP at all, and especially not on consequentialist grounds. I believe most people already have a basic adherence to the NAP (believing that in general stealing, assaulting, and enslaving are wrong) but either don't fully realize how they do actually support stealing, assaulting, and enslaving or regard that when the state does those things its a necessary evil.

Wrong. The state gets to create law. That is its purpose. Whatever action the state deems legitimate IS legitimate. There's no 'moral theory' to counter the OBVIOUS FACT that law, right and wrong is whatever the state say it is.

Private property is just an artificial construction. The state can tax and regulate as much as needed...for the common good or any other reason.

Juan:

Wrong. The state gets to create law. That is its purpose. Whatever action the state deems legitimate IS legitimate. There's no 'moral theory' to counter the OBVIOUS FACT that law, right and wrong is whatever the state say it is.

Private property is just an artificial construction. The state can tax and regulate as much as needed...for the common good or any other reason.

Are you consciously trolling now?

Here. A different twist to the ought-is sophism.

Let's assume that people believe you ought not to attack your neighbor.

That is a fact. The problem is, from the fact (IS) that Jones doesn't believe in attacking his neighbor directly, it doesn't follow that Jones OUGHT also to object to other forms of aggression.

Jones doesn't believe direct aggression IS okay. But you just can't deduce that all aggression OUGHT to be outlawed.

Are you consciously trolling now?

Do you disagree with the facts I just stated ?

Juan:

Here. A different twist to the ought-is sophism. 

Juan, that is not what we are discussing in this thread.  If you wish to discuss the is-ought question post on the is-ought thread already underway or start your own.

Lilburne, if you can't answer my objections, fine. But saying "start-your-own-thread" is childish.

Juan:

Lilburne, if you can't answer my objections, fine. But saying "start-your-own-thread" is childish.

Juan, I promise, if you raise your objections in an appropriate thread, I will answer them.  But I will not abet your effort to confuse the discussion by allowing myself to be baited into an off-topic debate with you in this thread.

Moreover you, as a 37 year-old man with the emotional maturity, eloquence, and subtlety of mind of a below-average 11 year-old, have no business calling anyone else childish.

lol. there are four threads dealing basically with the same semantic trolling that your 'philosophy' boils down to

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law
Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

Not sure why you whine about confusion since you are a promoter of it.

Do you think you can come up with any other childish remark ?

Juan:

lol. there are four threads dealing basically with the same semantic trolling that your 'philosophy' boils down to

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law
Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

Not sure why you whine about confusion since you are a promoter of it. 

Again you exhibit a deficient subtlety of mind.  Each of those threads encompasses a separate issue which, if one is interested in the careful consideration of ideas, and not the reactive grunts you contribute, can be the object of lengthy, focused, and productive discussion.

What is confusing, in my opinion, is the way ethics conversations used to evolve here.  Someone would make an all-purpose natural rights thread and, since there was no focus in the topic, people would talk past each other for 60 pages.  A couple weeks would pass, someone else would make another all-purpose natural rights thread, and the whole thing would start all over again.

Perhaps you liked the fuzziness of that approach, because it obscured the flaws of your position.  Perhaps the direct, focused questions of the new approach make you uncomfortable, which is why you try to reinsert chaos into the discussion by blurting out random comments and insisting on a reply.  Or perhaps I give you too much credit, and you're just a troll who types out the first reaction that comes to mind when he reads something he doesn't like.

Lilburne:

Juan:

lol. there are four threads dealing basically with the same semantic trolling that your 'philosophy' boils down to

How do natural rights theories cross the is/ought divide?
Valid Casuistry: Deriving Ought from Ought
Actual Logical Proof of Natural Law
Can You Define Natural Rights as a Meaningful Concept?

Not sure why you whine about confusion since you are a promoter of it. 

Again you exhibit a deficient subtelty of mind.  Each of those threads encompasses a separate issue which, if one is interested in the careful consideration of ideas, and not the reactive grunts you contribute, can be the object of lengthy, focused, and productive discussion.

What is confusing, in my opinion, is the way ethics conversations used to evolve here.  Someone would make an all-purpose natural rights thread and, since there was no focus in the topic, people would talk past each other for 60 pages.  A couple weeks would pass, someone else would make another all-purpose natural rights thread, and the whole thing would start all over again.

Perhaps you liked the fuzziness of that approach, because it obscured the flaws of your position.  Perhaps the direct, focused questions of the new approach make you uncomfortable, which is why you try to reinsert chaos into the discussion by blurting out random comments and insisting on a reply.  Or perhaps I give you too much credit, and you're just a troll who types out the first reaction that comes to mind when he reads something he doesn't like.

Careful; such reasoned responses can be grounds for being called a troll, traitor, statist, nihilist, etc. etc. etc.

What is confusing, in my opinion, is the way ethics conversations used to evolve here. Someone would make an all-purpose natural rights thread and, since there was no focus in the topic, people would talk past each other for 60 pages.

Your opinion. Sounds to me as if you want people to discuss things using a specific format. YOUR format...

Perhaps you liked the fuzziness of that approach, because it obscured the flaws of your position.

Or perhaps you want to spread your sophisms across four different threads so that they are harder to track. Also, having different threads to discuss the same issue seems to me to be the opposite of focused. But you know, "freedom is slavery" and generally speaking black is white...in some people's world.

Perhaps the direct, focused questions of the new approach make you uncomfortable, which is why you try to reinsert chaos into the discussion by blurting out random comments and insisting on a reply.

Or perhaps there's no NEW and IMPROVED(tm) approach, just a bunch of skeptics feeding their egos.

Maybe what you see as 'subtlety of mind' is just self-serving sophistry.

Or perhaps you just don't really get it. Just like people like AJ and AM really don't get it.

Or perhaps I give you too much credit, and you're just a troll who types out the first reaction that comes to mind when he reads something he doesn't like.

Or perhaps irony is dead.

Careful; such reasoned responses can be grounds for being called a troll, traitor, statist, nihilist, etc. etc. etc.

Hey Nitro how are you doing ?

Lilburne:

With most people, I think its a matter of arguing from (not for) the NAP that they already for the most part adhere to

Good point. On reflection, I agree.

Lilburne:

First I would ask the statist who is otherwise a decent person whether he feels stealing, assault, and enslavement are wrong.  If he answers affirmitavely, I would then prove him incoherent by deriving "ought" from "ought" (see the OP above) and showing him that he actually is promoting stealing, assault, and enslavement.

If he then objects that state stealing, state assault, and state enslavement are necessary evils, I would introduce him to Austrian economics to show him that they are not in fact necessary.

I've seen this approach before, and it is good. I think there may be ways to improve it in terms of persuasion. For example, no one likes to be caught out as having supported something immoral. They will tend to dig in their heels rather than admit to it. I think it's crucial that they realize that fact "in the silence of their own room," which takes a lot of finesse on the part of the advocate.

Juan:

Careful; such reasoned responses can be grounds for being called a troll, traitor, statist, nihilist, etc. etc. etc.

Hey Nitro how are you doing ?

Hm?

Lilburne:

Moreover you, as a 37 year-old man with the emotional maturity, eloquence, and subtlety of mind of a below-average 11 year-old, have no business calling anyone else childish.

Juan is 37? What the hell?