compatibilism

[BigMike]

I know...

As I said: "If people don't honor the social contract, why should I?" Do you seriously believe that I would sit around and wait for other people to kill me? It's possible that you simply aren't aware of the key distinctions between the natural state and a social contract.

You said: I would kill, steal, and leash like everybody else. That's a bit beyond killin' in self-defense.

As a moral realist (I believe a man has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life liberty, and property): I'd kill you in a sec if you came around lookin' to kill me, rob me, or leash me. I would end you today and in an apocalyptic tomorrow. It would be self-defense.

You, as an amoralist: would kill, steal, and leash like everybody else.

You see the difference, yeah?

I hope you know what I mean by "social contract." I hope you understand that in the state of nature, where there is no social contract, there are no laws and therefore no crimes. Everything is "legal" there. If you're hungry, you just kill your neighbors in the next valley and take their food. No big deal. Thomas Hobbes said that life without a social contract is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
I just can't accept the fact that you're that dim-witted.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, you're tellin' my why you hate slavery, but not why it's wrong.

That's right. I'm not a moral realist. Yes, in many situations, I will speak like a moral realist, to move things towards my preferences, which include empathy and other reactions to the way things are.

There are an estimated 40 million women, children, and men slaved right now. Obviously, the slavers don't share your distaste.

Obviously.

If you could attempt to persuade a slaver to stop, what would you say?

That would depend on the person, how they justified it, what they seemed like, what didn't work, what seemed to bother them and so on.

[henry quirk]

As I said: "If people don't honor the social contract, why should I?" Do you seriously believe that I would sit around and wait for other people to kill me? It's possible that you simply aren't aware of the key distinctions between the natural state and a social contract.

You said: I would kill, steal, and leash like everybody else. That's a bit beyond killin' in self-defense.

As a moral realist (I believe a man has a natural, inalienable right to his, and no one else's, life liberty, and property): I'd kill you in a sec if you came around lookin' to kill me, rob me, or leash me. I would end you today and in an apocalyptic tomorrow. It would be self-defense.

You, as an amoralist: would kill, steal, and leash like everybody else.

You see the difference, yeah?

I hope you know what I mean by "social contract." I hope you understand that in the state of nature, where there is no social contract, there are no laws and therefore no crimes. Everything is "legal" there. If you're hungry, you just kill your neighbors in the next valley and take their food. No big deal. Thomas Hobbes said that life without a social contract is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."
I just can't accept the fact that you're that dim-witted.

Guy, I know about the social contract, and nasty, short, and brutish. Save the lecture and insults.

I also know legal is not synonymous with moral, and legal anarchy doesn't negate morality.

Comes down to this: you'll murder, steal, rape, and slave when it suits you, and I will not. All that holds you back, today, is fear of gettin' caught. I won't and don't murder, steal, rape, and slave becuz these acts are wrong.

[henry quirk]

That would depend on the person, how they justified it, what they seemed like, what didn't work, what seemed to bother them and so on.

No offense, but -- as you said to phyllo -- that's unresponsive.

I can tell you exactly what I'd say to a slaver, any slaver. I don't have to tailor what I believe is true.

You wanna know what I'd tell the slaver?

[Iwannaplato]

Comes down to this: you'll murder, steal, rape, and slave when it suits you, and I will not. All that holds you back, today, is fear of gettin' caught. I won't and don't murder, steal, rape, and slave becuz these acts are wrong.

It's odd, with Big Mike not being a moral realist is a kind of sociopathy but with a practical sense: he'll be what moral realists could call 'good to others' because it is practially good.
Me, I won't murder, steal, rape and slave because I have empathy for other people, and, yes, also for practical reasons. But I'm not a sociopath, even in the jungle.

[Iwannaplato]

No offense, but -- as you said to phyllo -- that's unresponsive.

There's a difference. He was claiming something, but wouldn't back it up. He just went ad hom and when this was pointed out, he went ad hom again. I am not claiming slavery is wrong. So, I don't have MY argument. I certainly want people to stop owning slaves, so I will play the moral realist to stop them or to try to. But I don't have THE argument or MY argument. So, what I would do is what I thought might work...and yes, that would depend on them. Most likely I would challenge, then see what their justification was, they work on tearing that apart. If they seemed human in other ways, I might work on scraping whatever bullshit is on top of their empathy for the slaves.

I can tell you exactly what I'd say to a slaver, any slaver. I don't have to tailor what I believe is true.

I know. That's because you're a moral realist. Though even a moral realist, if they want to be effective, should likely tailor fit their arguments to the person listening. But you will have your own reasoning for why. And then hopefully, you also have a gut negative reaction to slavery.

You want to know my argument?

Sure, fire away.

I don't have a problem with moral realists. I just have a problem with morals I can't stand.

[BigMike]

Comes down to this: you'll murder, steal, rape, and slave when it suits you, and I will not. All that holds you back, today, is fear of gettin' caught. I won't and don't murder, steal, rape, and slave becuz these acts are wrong.

Actually, I said:

It depends. If people don't honor the social contract, why should I? In that case I would kill, steal, and leash like everybody else. To survive, I would have to do so, despite the fact that existence would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

I didn't say I would "murder, steal, rape, and slave when it suits [me]". I said I would do it "like everybody else. To survive, I would have to [...]"

[phyllo]

There's a difference. He was claiming something, but wouldn't back it up. He just went ad hom and when this was pointed out, he went ad hom again.

So that's how he rationalizes his reprehensible outbursts ... imagined ad homs.

[Age]

Question: you say you're not a moral realist, so how do you ground yourself?

IWP, you said...

There are people I value. There are things I value (love, hate, like, prefer....) I have goals.

I don't know if those answers fit, 'ground' means so many different things to different people.

In terms of right & wrong: what's your measure?

For example: is slavery (layin' claim to people & treating & using them as property & commodity) wrong? If so: why?

A behaviour is Wrong when:

1. You would not want that behaviour done to you, if you were their place.

2. Everyone one can agree with that behaviour being Wrong.

3. You know the purpose of human beings, then you know how to treat them without abusing them.

4. By definition that behaviour is Wrong.

Slavery is also Wrong, among other reasons like the ONLY one you know of "henry quirk", because it is also:

5. Just plain old abuse.

[Age]

I hate slavery.

Why?

Would you like to be used and treated like a commodity or property? I think the answer is self evident.

VERY GOOD response and answer "bigmike".

And one that by itself IS SUFFICIENT enough.

"henry quirk" just keeps 'trying to' use this one and only thing that 'it' has to 'try to' back up and support what 'it' BELIEVES is true, but which unfortunately for "henry quirk" can NOT actually be backed up NOR supported.

[Age]

Would you like to be used and treated like a commodity or property? I think the answer is self evident.

No, of course not. But the question for IWP, as he is not a moral realist, is: what is his measure for right & wrong.

He hates slavery. So do I. I, however, beyond personal distaste, can tell you why slavery is wrong.

Can you?

LOL
LOL
LOL

What do you mean, "can you?".

"bigmike" JUST TOLD you.

LOL Here is ANOTHER example of when one can NOT SEE, NOR HEAR, what was CLEARLY SAID, and even CLEARLY WRITTEN DOWN in front of them, because they BELIEVE some thing ELSE is true.

Can IWP?

"henry quirk" KNOWS one very small thing about how people have a right to their own self, liberty, and property, and BELIEVES that that thing backs up and supports 'its' OWN made up idea and conclusion that this means "henry quirk" has the 'right' to SHOOT DEAD people who touch "henry quirk's" property such as "henry quirks" toothpicks.

I suggest moving along from here "henry quirk".

[Age]

I hate slavery.

Why?

Empathy for other humans, hatred of people who think others are merely in existence for their use (which there is a still a lot of left in the world)

THERE, "henry quirk".

The WHY has been ANSWERED. Move along now.

'you' are NEVER going to 'justify' 'your' BELIEF that 'you' can KILL human beings just because they touch what 'you' CLAIM is 'your property'.

[Age]

Would you like to be used and treated like a commodity or property? I think the answer is self evident.

No, of course not. But the question for IWP, as he is not a moral realist, is: what is his measure for right & wrong.

He hates slavery. So do I. I, however, beyond personal distaste, can tell you why slavery is wrong.

Can you? Can IWP?

I don't subscribe to the moral realism view. In point of fact, I don't subscribe to the idea that there are any moral absolutes. I just believe that moral conduct is a rational choice that serves my own best interests.

LOL

"A choice", which could NEVER even exist in 'your' DREAMED UP 'deterministic ONLY world'.

My personal choice is to help individuals who are unable to provide for their own basic needs, provided that doing so does not put my own basic needs at risk.

Besides this being an OBVIOUS LIE as 'you' are OBVIOUSLY NOT helping individuals who are unable to provide for their own basic needs, there is NO such thing as a 'person' nor a 'personal CHOICE' in a 'deterministic ONLY world'. Which is what 'you' BELIEVE absolutely and wholeheartedly is what exists here.

For example, I've taken in a breast cancer patient who is homeless and from Romania. For more than 5 years, I have helped her get a temporary residence permit in my country, offered free lodging, paid for all of her expenses, including her medical bills, and I will do so until she is cancer-free. I decide to do it since I am in a good financial position that allows me to.

Oh, so when 'you' say, "My personal choice is to help individuals (with an s) who are unable to provide for their own basic needs", what 'you' ACTUALLY MEANT is that 'you' are helping just ONE individual.

And, by the way, some could very easily and very simply presume and conclude that 'you' are only helping that ONE individual for a very specific self-interest reason.

[Age]

Click.

On and on they go...still go...up in the clouds of abstraction.

You don't have to. Ask yourself: is my life (my being, my existence) mine? Is my liberty (my choices, my direction in the world) mine? Is my property (what I create, what I fairly transact for, my self) mine?

We use language quite differently. Property sure, I can use 'mine' happily with. My being and my existence, well I'm happy to have those possessive adjectives before them.....Though somehow say their are 'mine' sound strange to me. Why the possessive adjectives don't bother me and the possessive pronoun would, I don't know. I just find that sentence odd.

As though how they construe the definition and the meaning of these words has little or nothing to do with how I construe them in the OP here: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtop ... 1&t=176529

And let's encourage them to bring the discussion around to an issue like abortion and guns.

As for slavery, again, historically, there were any number of contexts in which it was rationalized by any number of people given a free will world. And today there's the question of the "wage slave". The workers aren't owned de jure but de facto many might just as well be. As long as they don't own the means of productions they become "for all practical purposes" little more than interchangeable, expendable parts.

What I find very interesting from that linked post is that 'you', human beings, have expanded in number by over one billion, in just twelve years only. Especially considering the fact that it took well over one million years to reach the first billion of 'you'.

But do NOT let this Fact detract from 'you' BELIEVERS continuing on to KEEP telling 'us' which one of 'you' is the MORE moral one.

[Age]

Why?

Empathy for other humans, hatred of people who think others are merely in existence for their use (which there is a still a lot of left in the world)

Well, you're tellin' my why you hate slavery, but not why it's wrong.

Could 'you' REALLY NOT HEAR and SEE the words, 'Empathy for other humans'?

If 'you' HAD EMPATHY "henry quirk", then 'you' would UNDERSTAND and SEE how 'Empathy for other humans' IS a reason WHY 'slavery IS wrong'. And, also WHY slavery IS OBVIOUSLY Wrong.

There are an estimated 40 million women, children, and men slaved right now. Obviously, the slavers don't share your distaste.

And, it could be very easily argued that the rest of 'you', adult human beings, ARE the slavers.

But one HAS TO BE Truly OPEN and Honest to RECOGNIZE and SEE this Fact.

If you could attempt to persuade a slaver to stop, what would you say?
I understand it probably wouldn't make a difference...I'm interested in your argument, not its success

What would 'you' say, "henry quirk"?

I am interested in 'your argument'.

I MIGHT be ABLE to USE it to SHOW 'you' HOW and WHY 'you' are ALSO a 'slaver' "henry quirk". But as 'you' have ALREADY STATED and ADMITTED, 'it probably would NOT make a difference', to 'you'.