August Spies

"if there were no humans or sentient beings, it'd be hard to do an immoral action, after all."

the whole idea is immorality would still exist without humans if it is objective.

Loren Pechtel

Note that I was advocating an insurance model. You pick your police company and pay for coverage.

Where this will fall down is that it doesn't handle patrol cops.

Thomas Ash

I don't think so - the idea is that some specific actions (eg. the Holocaust, to take a conversation-stopping example) are immoral, whatever anyone thinks or says about them. This is also your definition right, 99percent, not that morality would still exist without humans (and other sentient creatures)?

managalar

Um... Morality is a description of the strategy humans choose to promote life, some people think they can promote life by killing those who are 'different'....this is something I strongly disagree with...hence I dislike Nazi, or any other race-superiority moral systems. Heck, some moral systems don't even have the goal of promoting human life, for most people the goal is the promotion of human life, some want to promote all life, others just want True Christians to get into heaven, and have little concern for 'earthly matters'.

'Immoral' does not represent an objective thing, its just a descriptive word, and like any other word, it does not exist objectivly.

People will always debate on what morality is, they are really debating on how to promote human life....I've been trying to think of an example of how mass killing can be moral, and the only thing I can think of is the slaughter of food animals and nuscence animals (rodents, insects, bacteria, and viruses), I think these things are nessicary for human life...I would definitly disagree with a Neo-Nazi ass who says that and the Holocaust is the same. I can't just tell him that he's immoral because that's what immoral is objectivly, its just not what I, and most rational humans describe as moral.

99Percent

Much like many humanly derived concepts, morality itself only has meaning within the human realm. So to say that in order for morality to be objective it must still exist even if no humans existed is a meaningless requirement. Although I wouldn't doubt that aliens with reason and free will would develop objective morality too.

Anyway, it is obvious that many of you did not like my interjection of objective morality in my discussion of libertarianism. Even though a correct political system must be derived from objective moral principles, it remains a philosophical matter that has been lost or misinterpreted. "Objective Morality" is a dirty term here in atheistic circles apparently

August Spies asked for a brief summary of my moral theory. That rather belongs in the Moral Foundations forum. Instead I will outline the basis of libertarian principles:

1. Man is a moral being that has free will.
2. Happiness can only be perceived by the individual.
3. To achieve its reason of being and therefore his happiness he needs to be free from the force and violence of all men.
4. The fruits of his labor ("property"), or that obtained freely from others, are his to be enjoyed or for the purposes he alone finds right.
5. Man has the right to trade freely with others his property, with the fruits of other's labor.
6. No man or group of men has the right to interfere or take with force and violence the property of others, for no other reasons.

Autonemesis

That means it can only be subjective.

No, it is required if the terms "subjective" and "objective" are to have distinct meanings.

You meant "discover" objective morality, right? If it is objective, it cannot be invented or developed, it can only be discovered, like the tenth planet.

I can sink my teeth into your list, however. That's useful. Calling morality "objective" is not. So let's consider your subjective list of principles.

What does it mean to say "man is a moral being?" Is it just another way of saying he has free will? If so, then this can be shortened to simply "Man has free will" or "Man is a moral being."

I am not sure about happiness being perceived only by the individual. I suppose this makes sense for a certain narrow definition of "perceived." But then your next principle defines happiness as "achieving one's reason of being." What does that mean? Is it really true that a person must be free of the influence of other people to achieve happiness?

We get into serious problems with the next principle, that a person is free to do with his property as he sees fit. If in the course of using my property as I see fit, I incidentally produce toxic fumes that float over my neighbor's property, whose rights have been violated, and what is the remedy provided by a libertarian government? How does this remedy avoid infringing on a person's right to do with their property as they see fit?

If a person has the right to trade freely with his property, for the property of others, then surely he also has the right to refrain from trade. Is this so? Then how does a libertarian society prevent the hoarding of food or other essentials? This goes on all the time in relatively lawless third world countries. How does a libertarian society cope with such things, while honoring this principle?

The last principle is probably the most difficult of all. How are we to punish criminals? Indeed, given the preceeding principles, how are we to distinguish criminals from non-criminals? I presume a criminal is one who violates one of the other principles with respect to some other person's property. You seem to have left a "loophole" for this purpose with the phrase "for no other reasons." What other reasons? You seem to have left that out.

If the government institutes a crime-prevention program, is it justified to levy taxes on everyone to support the program, given that its purpose is to protect the citizen's rights to the remainder of their property (after taxes)? How does this work? If we ensure that we can feed and house people regardless of their means, so as to remove any incentive for criminal activity to obtain the essentials of living (food, shelter, clothing), is a welfare system supported by tax dollars in violation of these libertarian principles of yours? If so, where do you draw the line? Is a libertarian society able to take preventive measures against crime, without running afoul of these principles you outlined? I don't see how.

August Spies

Thomas Ash:

Ash, for this to be an objective idea then these morals would have to be INDEPENDENT of humans. They would exist in gods mind, or something like that. They would have to be independent of humans.

99Percent:

Much like many humanly derived concepts, morality itself only has meaning within the human realm.

while I lean towards this stance, this IS NOT OBJECTIVE THEORY it is subjective morality. Or perhaps it is INTER-SUBJECTIVE morality.

So to say that in order for morality to be objective it must still exist even if no humans existed is a meaningless requirement.

Translation: in order for objectivity to be objective it must be subjective.

uh... doesn't work 99

it remains a philosophical matter that has been lost or misinterpreted.

Apparently it has been lost and misinterpreted by YOU, the rest of us are clear on it.

99: thank you for the outline and thank you for clearing up what we assumed all along, you are not talking about objective morals. You are talking about inter-subjective morals perhaps and using the term objective cause it sounds like a stronger argument. Kind bud as it right with "If it is objective, it cannot be invented or developed, it can only be discovered, like the tenth planet. " You can of course use whatever term you want if it makes you happy, but you should recognize that what you are discussing is not objective morality as it has been defined from Plato to Sartre.

August Spies

LP:

Ah paying for protection, oh for the days of the mafia.

Really though, how does this compare to insurance? Insurance companies DO NOTHING until after an accident. So that is fine, you go afterwords and collect.

Police are supposed to stop crimes before they happen or in progress. How does this work? When someone is about to rob me I quickly call my police company? if another company's cop was around he would just walk away?

99Percent

Kind Bud:
First of all let me tell you that I appreciate your cordial discussion. I say this after witnessing some senseless libertarian bashing by others here. (BTW your observation on my liberal use of quotes in one of my replies was very astute. I have been thinking as to why I did so).
I think you are confusing facts with concepts. A fact which is based on actual reality can be true or false. Concepts, OTOH, are human derived classifications to formulate derived knowledge. For example the number zero is a concept that does not actually exist in reality but its nevertheless an objective truth. Objective Morality falls under the latter.
Yeah, you could say "discover". But your example is not correct. The tenth planet would be an objective fact, not a derived or discovered concept.
Yes. Only the individual can pursue his/her own happiness. For example lets say you see a homeless person. For you it might be the best to have a home so you think of giving this person a home. But if you give it to him, that person is not going to feel accomplished. Sure he might feel some comfort and maybe even happiness but not necessarily so, because its not what he necessarily wants, it wasn't achieved out of his own means. Here is where you can say that the means of achieving happiness is subjective, everyone has their own definition and ways to achieve it. Also what is "needed" or what is a "luxury" is also entirely subjective.
In the strictest sense, you have no right to produce toxic fumes that float over any other property including public property. The real problem resides on defining what is toxic. Sure if I spill radioactive cobalt over to my neighbor - that is certainly harmful, but if I blow some cigarrete smoke that drifts over to your property surely in this case there should be away to be somewhat tolerant. Its a matter of being reasonable, of which all of us are too. Harmful would have to be defined that which causes immediate and irreparable harm, not something nebulous such as global warming, for example.
YesOf what good would be to the individuals to hoard food if food by nature goes to waste? Also guarding and hoarding food takes resources which go to waste if you are being irrational about it. Again its a matter of being reasonable of which all of us are.
Criminals need to be isolated from society, and requires objective courts to determine criminality. Of course this takes money and therefore taxation, but as I had stated before its a minimal amount (less than 1% at the very most), a very far cry from the current levels of taxation.Well, usually subjective reasons such as requiring minimal levels of housing, food, working standards, minimum wage etc, all of which interfere with the free trade of goods and services.Unfortunately the government cannot really prevent crime because crime is always the initiation of force or fraud. To effectively prevent such acts would have to limit severely or freedom such as practically isolating us each to our own jail cell. The government should only jail those who have actually commited crimes. In other words, force is only justified as a response to the initation of force by individuals or group of individuals.Yes. what is "essentials of living" is an entirely subjective matter (as I have discussed in length with Pomp). Even if we were able to determine what is the absolute essentials (maybe a tent, water and bread, lets say) some would prefer more food instead of more shelter. Another problem is that the "essential" varies from geographical region and even by culture or religion, so there can never be agreement on what is "essential" its a great fallacy to think that the government should be fulfilling the role of satisfying "essential" goods and services to the people. ONLY the people can satisfy themselves and on an individual basis!

August Spies

99percent: good example. Math is like objective morals. However, this backs OUR argument not yours. Mathamatical forumals exist OBJECTIVLY AND INDEPNDENT OF HUMAN BEINGS. Even if humans did not "know" about the number zero the concept, an objectivist would argue, still existed objectivly outside of humans. we just needed to "discover" it.

if you are going to use the word discover then you ahve to recognize objective morality would be INDEPENDENT of human beings.