henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:48 amA man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).
It is what it is.
I belong to myself; you belong to yourself.
This is self-evident.
It's the universal intuition of every man, anywhere, at any time, that he is his own.
Even the slaver believes he is his own and would never accept wearin' the leash as his birthright.
Questions are welcome.
That may be generally true, but it's not universally true. Your self-ownership ends exactly when, where how and why your liberty ends.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So a necessary feature of any moral system is the distinction between harmul and non-harmful freedoms.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Thu Dec 16, 2021 3:48 amA man belongs to himself. (Or, as my good friend, age put it: A man is free).
That may be generally true, but it's not universally true. Your self-ownership ends exactly when, where how and why your liberty ends.
The harm principle holds that the actions of individuals should only be limited to prevent harm to other individuals. John Stuart Mill articulated this principle in On Liberty, where he argued that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."
So a necessary feature of any moral system is the distinction between harmul and non-harmful freedoms.
Seems to me do no harm is embedded in line 3...
A man's life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, willingly, without just cause, deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.
The difference between us: you believe I can restrained for harm I might do; I believe you can be restrained only for harm you've done.
What is the supporting argument for self-belonging being the only commonality?
I didn't say that.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Dec 19, 2021 2:53 amI suggest, as a man's intuition of ownness, of self-belonging, is the only unadulterable universal commonality
Men have all kinds of commonalities: take hunger. Everyone gets hungry, everyone eats. What they eat, that can be a contentious thing. Here, in S. LA. we eat crawfish. Folks in other parts might find that distasteful. The commonality of hunger becomes a difference.
Ownness, though, it can be ignored, but it can't be interpreted. I belong to me, you belong to you.
And why does the basis for determining this need to be a universal commonality rather than somehting else like compassion or something which psychopaths happen to lack?
Compassion is voluntary, and voluntarily expressed. You may feel compassion for X while I'm cold on X; my heart may bleed for Y while Y leaves you indifferent.
Is your argument dependent on a religion that pretty much nobody shares where your deity is cribbed from a Conan the Barbarian film?
Or is it shorn of the mystical stuff and predicated on observation of self-awareness and moral agency?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:09 pmWhen you go back into the infinite regress, you arrive at God, the God that put everything in motion, right?
I never accepted infinite regress as an atheist; I certainly don't accept it as a deist.
No, the universe had a beginning, is finite, and will end.
You go back (if I am not mistaken) to the existent being out of which all contingent existence comes.
The Unmoved Mover, the First Principle, the Reality behind Reality: God (I used to call Him Crom, but nobody really got the joke).
Is that Being that you define as eternal God? If yes did that Being have an origin?
No, He's eternal (wouldn't be much of an Unmoved Mover otherwise, though I'll say deism, in its vanilla form, sez nuthin' about the Creator in that area).
No. It is not possible to propose that. In this sense one can describe God as eternally existent and in this sense as *Existence* (or perhaps the possibility of existence).
It doesn't follow, no, that becuz God is eternal, His Creation is also. Logically, the creation follows the creator.
I do not think that the view I express here, which is logically consistent (undeniable in fact) means that the existent world is God's body. That seems to be how you are taking it.
If God is not synonymous with the Creation, if God and Creation (or existence) are two, not one, then I'm missin' sumthin' in your posts (cuz it seems to me you're sayin' the two are synonymous).
Yeah, the 12 week zygote is bio-automata to at least as great an extent as the cow, and so are most coma patients.
I mean it's different if there's souls involved, with specific religious implications.
12week old entities: my thinkin' can be found here...
The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:46 pm
The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
translation: I don't know diddly about libertarianism, its strains, and I don't wanna know
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:30 pmIs your argument dependent on a religion that pretty much nobody shares where your deity is cribbed from a Conan the Barbarian film?
Or is it shorn of the mystical stuff and predicated on observation of self-awareness and moral agency?
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 06, 2021 9:09 pmWhen you go back into the infinite regress, you arrive at God, the God that put everything in motion, right?
I never accepted infinite regress as an atheist; I certainly don't accept it as a deist.
No, the universe had a beginning, is finite, and will end.
You go back (if I am not mistaken) to the existent being out of which all contingent existence comes.
The Unmoved Mover, the First Principle, the Reality behind Reality: God (I used to call Him Crom, but nobody really got the joke).
Is that Being that you define as eternal God? If yes did that Being have an origin?
No, He's eternal (wouldn't be much of an Unmoved Mover otherwise, though I'll say deism, in its vanilla form, sez nuthin' about the Creator in that area).
No. It is not possible to propose that. In this sense one can describe God as eternally existent and in this sense as *Existence* (or perhaps the possibility of existence).
It doesn't follow, no, that becuz God is eternal, His Creation is also. Logically, the creation follows the creator.
I do not think that the view I express here, which is logically consistent (undeniable in fact) means that the existent world is God's body. That seems to be how you are taking it.
If God is not synonymous with the Creation, if God and Creation (or existence) are two, not one, then I'm missin' sumthin' in your posts (cuz it seems to me you're sayin' the two are synonymous).
Yeah, the 12 week zygote is bio-automata to at least as great an extent as the cow, and so are most coma patients.
I mean it's different if there's souls involved, with specific religious implications.
12week old entities: my thinkin' can be found here...
I can cite articles on the comatose, if you're interested.
Your 3 rules unpack differently if some people believe in souls and think abortion is murder and some people don't believe in souls and think abortion is fine.
Your 3 rules unpack differently if some people believe in souls and think abortion is murder and some people don't believe in souls and think abortion is fine.
You don't have to believe in a Creator to recognize each person sees himself as his own; to recognize a person's life, liberty, property is his own; to recognize that some consequence ought follow violations of life, liberty, and property.
Seems to me believer and unbeliever, if honest, will unbox the three the same.
Disputes come from legit differences of opinion: for example, meat or person?, not from does a person belongs to himself?.
You can ignore ownness, violate it, but I'm not seein' invalidation of it.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 4:37 pm
Disputes come from legit differences of opinion: for example, meat or person?, not from does a person belongs to himself?.
You are supposed to be unpacking incontrovertible moral fact.
And your effort here was supposed to show that an imaginary minarchist nation would have an unambiguous legal code with all questions answered by just those 3 laws.
Sculptor wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:46 pm
The libertarian resents paying taxes but is the first to call the police when a poor person excerts his "self creation" by burglering the rich mans house.
The Libertarian is happy to exploit the blue collar worker, but is pissed off when there are too few of them educated enough to run his factory for him.
The libertarian is all too happy to vote against the taxes that would help create a educated healthy work force, roads, police and army then he is pissed off when a country willing to build these things comes and invades his land and beggers him.
Such are the paradoxes of capitalism- a great ideas of only people were not so greedy.
translation: I don't know diddly about libertarianism, its strains, and I don't wanna know
as you like
Nonetheless all the points made point to stuff you have said.
You are supposed to be unpacking incontrovertible moral fact.
am I not?
And your effort here was supposed to show that an imaginary minarchist nation would have an unambiguous legal code with all questions answered by just those 3 laws.
nope...never said that was I was doin' here
in the other thread: I've talked about how the charter is founded on the 3 and how you'd have constables and courts to investigate and arbitrate criminal violation and civil dispute
this thread was, is, for exploring the 3
you wanna intermix the two threads, fine, but don't go sayin' I said sumthin', in reference to either, I didn't
henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 6:01 pmYou are supposed to be unpacking incontrovertible moral fact.
am I not?
No. Not even close. Your 3 rules don't work the same in the case of abortion for persons who do and do not attach occult imaginary entities to their conception of a 12 week cluster of cells in a uterus.
Your 3 rules don't work out the same for people who simply aren't buying your dogs are flesh robots thing either.
And your fix for that is supposed to be "Seems to me believer and unbeliever, if honest, will unbox the three the same." That's just weak.
Your 3 rules don't work the same in the case of abortion for persons who do and do not attach occult imaginary entities to their conception of a 12 week cluster of cells in a uterus.
Sure they do. The 3 only tell you about a person. Ain't nuthin' there about when personhood is obtained, or comes to be, in the womb. I acknowledge in the R vs W thread not everyone is religious, and acknowledged there the strictly materialist position. The 3 can only speak to what all men know about man, not to when man transitions from human cells to person.
And I never said it did.
Your 3 rules don't work out the same for people who simply aren't buying your dogs are flesh robots thing either.
I'll give you that one. Mebbe dogs are people, persons. Wanna talk about that? About what a person is? We can, I'm up for it.
And your fix for that is supposed to be "Seems to me believer and unbeliever, if honest, will unbox the three the same." That's just weak.
I don't think so. If a man -- religious or not -- can recognize he is his own (you're a non-religious, moral subjectivist, and you recognize this about yourself, yeah?) then he can recognize this about another man (you recognize this about me, yeah?).
