Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gurdur · 12-30-2002, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent

No, it doesn't claim to be scientific at all. There is a big difference between pure logic and the empiricism of science and reason itself. Objective morality is derived from reason not science, and it must be individually learned and reasoned out. Not dictated.

this explains why Objectivists dictate to others just what are objective morals.

Quote:

Again, argumentum ad populum. That you do not want to see it is another matter. I will get back to that thread shortly.
Again, you are confusing pure logic with reason. They are not the same.
This is a contradiction in terms. Reason cannot be imposed upon others. It must come from your own free will to choose to think for yourself.
Nonsense. Objectivism doesn't discard science or is anti-science. Its a philosophical stance that goes above science in the scheme of knowledge.

Do explain further; and also explain just what you think science is.

Quote:

Gurdur, must you spam the board with the same baseless arguments over and over again? Seems like a desperate attempt to be heard. Reminds me of the signature I want to use here: "The weaker the argument, the stronger the voice." - Mr. Lucky.

What seems rather desperate to me is your personal attacks when I present logical, reasoned arguments.

Perceptions differ, eh ?
Concentrate on the logical, not the personal !

Oh, and BTW:
If you are accusing me of spamming this board, specify immediately whether that is only your personal opinion or your moderator opinion.

Immediately, man.

99Percent · 12-30-2002, 06:24 PM

I am not responding to you any longer Gurdur. Its quite apparent it has become a waste of time. I will let my arguments rest their case to the lurkers.

Gurdur · 12-30-2002, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur
.....
If you are accusing me of spamming this board, specify immediately whether that is only your personal opinion or your moderator opinion.

Immediately, man. [/B]

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent

I am not responding to you any longer Gurdur. Its quite apparent it has become a waste of time. I will let my arguments rest their case to the lurkers.

One more chance:

Specify whether your accusation of spamming was your personal opinion or your moderator opinion, 99percent

John Hancock · 12-30-2002, 08:08 PM

99 percent
No, it doesn't claim to be scientific at all. There is a big difference between pure logic and the empiricism of science and reason itself. Objective morality is derived from reason not science, and it must be individually learned and reasoned out. Not dictated.

That means what? One man's vitreous is immuned to the virtual work of the universal forces outside his mind?

Libertarianism advocates laissez faire capitalism, which means the total or at least the minimal forms of government intervention in the free economic affairs of men. This includes of course not granting special favors, properties, tax exemptions, corporate or farm subsidies, etc, among many other ways.

Funny I thought that meant "buyer beware" as in we can fuck you in any manner we will not be too harshly limited for our profit level.

Searching for your leadership so enlightened;
Martin Buber

August Spies · 12-30-2002, 10:34 PM

why is it 99 that you constantly dont' answer these questions and then always back out of the debate by attacking the questioner.

I can see this happneing once or twice, but if its going to happen every month its probably YOUR fault.

Can you exlpain to me the difference between logic and reason in this context?

can you explain to me how liberatiran theory is objective? you have not once addressed this so far.

theyeti · 12-30-2002, 11:39 PM

Would you jackasses please quit quibbering over objectivism? So what if 99% is a fervent believer in it? Why don't we get back to practical political issues?

And welcome back Boneyard Bill!

theyeti

Hugo Holbling · 12-31-2002, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent
I am not responding to you any longer Gurdur. Its quite apparent it has become a waste of time. I will let my arguments rest their case to the lurkers.

Which arguments? The one's on behalf of your faith, or the personal attacks on Gurdur? I don't think we need a poll to decide the case on either.

Thomas Ash · 12-31-2002, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by August Spies
Thomas Ash:
it is the 99's view of objective morality that I/we are questioning. The way he describes it (which is very little) is not at all like how objectivy morality is normally described.

Not necessarily so. I can perfectly well imagine the possibilty of an objective morality having the command "don't ever interfere with anybody's freedom", or any other tennet for that matter. Don't left wing or liberal beliefs also rest on a belief in objective morality - ie. we believe to be right that we look after the less fortunate, work towards a better world and society, etc.?

Thomas Ash · 12-31-2002, 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr. Retard
I think you have two criticisms here:

(1) On libertarianism, ownership becomes arbitrary. You suggest that, if property rights are grounded in 'production' (like Lockean 'labour-mixing', I guess), then they seem well-deserved.

Yes, Dr. Retard (I feel a bit awkward calling you that

), "labour mixing" is exactly what I was referring to it. It seems a highly ad hoc justification of how specific peices of natural materials got 'owned' in the first place. I've yet to hear a peice of reasoning given in its support. Anyone? (I expect a deafening silence to this one

)

Quote:

In contrast, on the 'first-use' grounding I'm describing, they don't seem well-deserved -- they seem arbitrary. I think this is right, but I don't think much follows. The fact that I possess two healthy kidneys is not due to any admirable effort on my part; I just got lucky. But presumably my kidneys aren't up for grabs -- they're mine, not because I earned them, but just because taking them from me would violate my rights. Just because ownership is arbitrary doesn't make it OK to take away the resources in question. (Nozick presses this point against Rawls.)

Yes, but you'd better watch your kidneys for dear life if the Marxists on this board get their way...

(joke)

Quote:

(2) On libertarianism, ownership is only legitimate if it has a non-aggressive chain of transfers behind it; and, of course, in the real world, almost everyone's ownership is 'tainted' by past aggression. This is an interesting point that deserves to be addressed by libertarians. For just these sorts of reasons, Nozick entertains the idea that affirmative action and the like could be justified on libertarianism, as remuneration for past aggression.

But that seems unjust on the pure conception of justice Nozick wants, doesn't it? Do children deserve to pay, or be put at a disadvantage, for the sins of their ancestors? Shouldn't we be looking to the future?
Great post.

thefugitivesaint · 12-31-2002, 09:37 AM

Thomas Ash:

Quote:

Don't left wing or liberal beliefs also rest on a belief in objective morality - ie. we believe to be right that we look after the less fortunate, work towards a better world and society, etc.?

Well, if we could highlight a certain telling word within this part of your statement we could easily clear up a glarying inconsistency. The word "believe" implies a "believer." If the morality being discussed here was, in fact, "objective" than "belief" would not come into play as belief or non-belief would be variables that had no weight. If we had to function under a morality that was truly "objective" in the sense that gravity is "objective" than individual preferences would be mere ostentatious dress. Morality requires someone to value it and those values should reflect and address the specific needs of the "moral agent" in question. This very structure entails a specific socio-biological history whose development is arbitrary universally speaking. Given a different environment to develop in, different needs to be met and different social structures to attain those needs then you have a different organism whose "moral priorities" would be altered as well. Not all "moral" structures are readily built into nature like a universal blueprint. But, what the hell do i know?

Quote:

.."labour mixing" is exactly what I was referring to it

I would like a bit of explination here. I think i know what you are referring to but i am unclear (hence the question). Thanx and i'll reply after new years (not that anyone is deeply concerned here).
-theSaint

12-30-2002, 11:39 PM	#216
theyeti Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Denver, CO, USA Posts: 9,747	Screw objectivism Would you jackasses please quit quibbering over objectivism? So what if 99% is a fervent believer in it? Why don't we get back to practical political issues? And welcome back Boneyard Bill! theyeti

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-30-2002, 06:24 PM	#212
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	I am not responding to you any longer Gurdur. Its quite apparent it has become a waste of time. I will let my arguments rest their case to the lurkers.

12-30-2002, 08:08 PM	#214
John Hancock Banned Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mars Posts: 2,231	99 percent No, it doesn't claim to be scientific at all. There is a big difference between pure logic and the empiricism of science and reason itself. Objective morality is derived from reason not science, and it must be individually learned and reasoned out. Not dictated. That means what? One man's vitreous is immuned to the virtual work of the universal forces outside his mind? Libertarianism advocates laissez faire capitalism, which means the total or at least the minimal forms of government intervention in the free economic affairs of men. This includes of course not granting special favors, properties, tax exemptions, corporate or farm subsidies, etc, among many other ways. Funny I thought that meant "buyer beware" as in we can fuck you in any manner we will not be too harshly limited for our profit level. Searching for your leadership so enlightened; Martin Buber

12-30-2002, 10:34 PM	#215
August Spies Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: The Vine Posts: 12,950	why is it 99 that you constantly dont' answer these questions and then always back out of the debate by attacking the questioner. I can see this happneing once or twice, but if its going to happen every month its probably YOUR fault. Can you exlpain to me the difference between logic and reason in this context? can you explain to me how liberatiran theory is objective? you have not once addressed this so far.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.