August Spies

Free markets have existed for millenia in ancient civilizations,

examples would be helpful for us to know what you are talking about....

the fact that capitalism indeed works to advance economically and therefore the standards of living of men.

just about all systems work to advance man in some ways. Its not like fuedalism or state capitalism didn't advance the economies of the countries it was practiced in.

But in the human realm of understanding we do have free will because we can never determine what are the choices of other rational beings. This is what I mean by common sense for example and it is clearly not subjective in nature.

this makes no sense. perhaps examples would be helpful for us to know what you are talking about....

You are doing yourself a great disservice by denying it, pretending that you are just a slightly more complex animal.

would backing this up with arguments or facts or something at least be a problem?

John Hancock

99%

Shut up and take counsel man, copa a plea the DA has ya by the balls!

Martin Buber

Dr. Retard

When I talk about "objective morality" I'm not talking about "Objectivism", the Randian movement. I (with philosophers in general) am talking about (something like) morality that has warrant apart from the subjective affections of those who espouse it. Objectivism has a lot to do (historically) with political libertarianism. Objective morality, in contrast, has nothing to do with political libertarianism. So perhaps this is not a real dispute.

But, if it is a real dispute, and you claim that objective morality, that philosophical position going back to Plato, has something special to do with political libertarianism, then you are wrong. Socialists, conservatives, moderate liberals, left-liberals, communitarians, and libertarians all often appeal to objective morality. None of these positions is more committed to objective morality than any of the others. The meta-ethical question of objective morality does not decide among these political positions.

Consequently, when you bash objective morality, you're bashing every political position equally (possibly, not at all).

managalar

Reason isn't a thing. You said in your last post that human essence is beyond observable facts. This is a show-stopper. If you think there is anything beyond observable facts, and that semantic knowledge is somehow more real than neural pathway configurations, then I'm never going to make sense of political ideas based on those conditions.

:banghead:

99Percent

Yes, all political systems are based on a corresponding moral theory.

99Percent

There a countless things that aren't concrete, that aren't observable facts yet they are certainly real in the human real of understanding and language. Aren't in fact political ideas themselves "things" that are not observable, that wouldn't exist outside of the human realm? It just requires a bit more understanding. For example, American Indians had no notion of the idea of land as property before the Europeans arrived because the Europeans had advanced political philosophy a lot more than the American Indians. Yet nowadays everyone understands the idea of land as property, even though its not a concrete "thing". There are no actual natural lines that separate property.

Gurdur

Quite right; however, cast an eye upon the topic title and the discussion so far.

I've been discussing Objectivism all along, in terms of its political consequences.

Moreover, just to make a general aside, objective morality in your terms has never been proven - as you would know - and all appeals to objective morality in your terms made by anyone have consequently been shown to be fallacious.

BTW, check out my threads on evolutionary psychology and the objectivity of elements within morality in the archives.

Irrelevant.
I've been discussing Objectivism, and your argument is wrong in any case.

Simply because many political stances make appeals to a non-proven and rather inexistant objective morality does not mean that all poltical stances make appeal to objective morality ---

therefore your conclusion that I am bashing all political stances equally is a fallacy.

Frankly, DrRetard, I'm rather surprised you would claim this. It's a very simple fallacy of composition, no ?

managalar

I can't make any sense of your first sentence. Further, I don't know how ideas could exist without people, or some sort of storage medium. You keep insisting they would by saying they are objective, and I just don't see how.


Oh yeah? Ideas are stored in neural pathways in the brain, they can also be stored in writing (symbolically representing ideas or things). Ideas about how to exist are debatable, they always have changed, and they always will.

Firstly, Native American technology was far inferior to European technology. Second, their ability to describe nature was still intertwined with superstitious tales and talking animals. But, just because they didn't have the advanced political philosophy, it doesnt valadate every idea which is different. Native American philosophy was very naturalistic, they believed the land owned them, and that trying to claim property was like trying to claim the wind.

Just because everyone understands it that way, it doesn't mean anything. Most countries will charge you property taxes in exchange for legitmizing your claim. The property lines are only on paper, they are symbolic, just like words and ideas are symbolic, they are not 'things'.

Gurdur

Further to Managalar's posts, and my reply to Dr.Retard, please also see my new thread The politics of morality, and have a good, ideology-free day.

Autonemesis

With respect to societies that would regard its tenets as alien, yes it does. Societies that existed before libertarianism were thought up are in this category. Libertarianism would be no more workable in ancient Egypt or Greece than consumerism would. In fact, I'd be much more inclined to agree that there is a strong connection between consumerism and libertarianism, than there is between libertarianism and early ideas of individualism.

Your concluding sentence seems not to be connected strongly with the statements that preceeded it. As best I can determine, your example of free will and scientific determinism tend to undermine your conclusion, not support it. The human realm of understanding is itself an entirely subjective matter. Nothing objective can follow from it. I am really puzzled why you keep insisting that subjectivity is identical to objectivity, when many persons including myself have pointed out this error.

But that is what we are, objectively speaking. Romantic notions of human "specialness" have to be regarded as merely vestiges of magical and religious thinking. There is no objective reason to think that humans are special, to any creature but other humans. These notions should be put aside with all the other discredited ideas of magical or divine origins. Though perhaps some carnivorous species consider humans a delicacy, and therefore special in that sense.