You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Principles and Predictions
Moral right? Who decides these morals? What do you think I don't have the right to do? You ignored my question earlier, why do you think I don't have the right to protect myself? Or if you do, why do you think I can't delegate that right?
Natural rights. Behaviours which can be universally shared between all individuals. For example: Murder, theft, assault, and rape are all examples of property violations which we can not prefer for ourselves.
You do have a right to protect yourself, if that drunken driver was gunning straight for you then yes you can make a case for either yourself or another individual to shoot the driver in defense. However you made no claims of where the driver was heading, just that he was drunk. It doesn't matter whether there's a man in a blue costume or not, do YOU in that scenario have the right to shoot/stop the driver, and can you make a case for your defense upon doing so.
"...are you assuming that people universally do not want to be murdered, so there's a right not to be murdered?"
In order for it to be murder, the person must refuse consent. If the person consents to be deprived of life, that's assisted suicide. The denial of consent is built in to the definition of the action.
What do you mean by "behaviors which can be universally shared?" That is, are you assuming that people universally do not want to be murdered, so there's a right not to be murdered? If so, isn't that essentially a mandate due to popular opinion?
By the way do you realize that in certain cultures people considered being sacrificed to be an honor? And in other cultures there is no concept of ownership at all, so property rights and the right not to be killed are, in fact, not universal. These things are derived from majority consensus in our culture, in exactly the same way government authority is.
That these behaviors can be practiced by everyone simultaneously without contradiction. Not that they ARE, but that they CAN BE without inconsistency.
"Who decides these morals" is begging the question. It presumes that morality is subjective. If it were, it would be meaningless, as you attempt to point out. So instead of using that as a reason to accept the theft, assault, rape, and murder of human beings in the name of the State, perhaps instead use it as motivation to learn whether or not morality even IS subjective.
It is objectively true that theft, assault, rape, and murder are internally consistent. The person engaging in these acts is using their property to deprive another of their property. In other words, the perpetrator is telling you with their very actions that their action is wrong.
I'd actually argue he's begging the question. He's claimed we don't have the moral right to delegate things he claims we don't have the moral right to do. Circular reasoning at it's finest. No wonder no one can effectively argue his question, it's logical garbage at the outset!
I have no idea what you mean by that. As best I can tell you've just stated the equivalent of 2 = 2.
Tell that to a culture which doesn't even believe in property. You're making huge assumptions based on... what, exactly? Why do you believe your property is yours? A few thousand years ago your "property" could actually have been a kings.
So you claim morality is objective, and we're supposed to believe that government is immoral because of your specific moral claims... but you haven't shown that morality is objective, nor that your specific moral claims are objectively correct.
answering telos
The morals are decided by what is logically consistent. If you decide murder is moral then you are saying that another person can exert his will upon (kill you) you but you can't exert your will upon him (not be killed) (assuming you want to live, if you don't, then it isn't murder, it's assisted suicide). So it's logically inconsistent, like saying 2=3, which we all know to be false simply my empirical facts.
The case for property rights is this: you own yourself (if you need logical proof on this go search it, I just assumed it as true). When you are born you aren't born into slavery. No one can take your arm, eat it, and you'll be ok with it. So by owning yourself you can do whatever you want to do with your time, as long as it isn't causing harm to anyone (you aren't murdering anyone, raping anyone, etc). So if you decide to spend 8 hours to get money and then you buy property with that money, no one should be able to steal any part of that property or the money you worked for, unless you consent to that (social contract doesn't involve consent).
A culture without personal property would be sustainable only insofar as it would be moral, ie the people would have to CONSENT to give their property away. So if I work for 8h and you work for 4h I would have to freely give my 2h of work to you (in the form of currency or food or whatever). But this, as you know, has too many ways to go wrong... that's why communism doesn't work.
So there, I just proved morality is objective despite cultural beliefs (which aren't logical - if you are going to use tribes to base your arguments remember that we used to burn witches, commit infanticide, etc. the only logical argument that can be sustained is that an immoral action (murder) can become moral once you have consent (murder -> euthanasia, rape -> sex, theft -> giving stuff, violence -> martial arts, etc...)