compatibilism

[Alexiev]

I was trying to return to the topic

Okay. Here's where I stand on the topic...

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

And even if natural rights is just another subjective construct. So what? I cannot see how recognizing and respecting another's claim to his own life, liberty, and property, even if the claim is fiction, is a bad thing.

Surely you can imagine both hypothetical and real examples of how such rights are a bad thing. Anyone can. Here are some examples:

1) (Hypothetical) Robinson Crusoe lives alone on an island. He claims the island as his "property". A shipwreck causes 30 more people to swim to the island. "You can't stay here. It's mine," shouts Robinson. Does he have a "right" to assert these "property rights" (which will cause the ship wrecked sailors to drown)? Wouldn't asserting his property rights conflict with the law of magnanimity, and with the rights to life and liberty of the sailors?

2) The King claims his entire country as his property, by divine right. Robin Hood is starving and shoots a deer on the King's property. Does the king have a natural right to have Robin Hood hanged?

3) A man owns slaves. They are his property, by law and because he paid for them. Don't his property rights conflict with their right to liberty? How is this conflict to be adjudicated?

4) How can a man have a natural moral claim to property when property is defined differently in different cultures, countries and clans? If one lives in a small, hunting and gathering clan, what do such "rights' consist of? If you live in a communist country?

[Immanuel Can]

Compatibilism is, there is free will, and determinism doesn't have to be false.

Easy to say. Far too easy. And Compatiblists say it. But do they have any justification in saying it?

Exactly how is it possible to make sense of that claim? It doesn't become true just because they say it, obviously. So maybe you can make sense of it for us: show us that free will can exist while Determinism isn't thereby made false. For any ordinary usage would imply that's impossible.

Once again you butt yourself into a conversation about *the meaning of options* and start demanding I make sense of it for you.

No. I don't demand anything. I just ask that you make Compatibilism make sense *for anybody.*

If it doesn't make sense, and can't be made sensible, you can just say so, and...enough said.

[Flannel Jesus]

No. I don't demand anything. I just ask that you make Compatibilism make sense *for anybody.*

If it doesn't make sense, and can't be made sensible, you can just say so, and...enough said.

The thing I've offered you is a conversation about why I believe what I believe. First time I offered it you spit your dummy out and demanded a proof. Second time you took the offer but then left the conversation after 1 single post from me. If you want to understand the thought process, you aren't behaving like you do.

You have no obligation to try to understand or to have conversations about ideas you disagree with, but nobody is going to believe your curiosity is genuine if you can't just have a conversation about the thing you're saying you're curious about.

[Immanuel Can]

No. I don't demand anything. I just ask that you make Compatibilism make sense *for anybody.*

If it doesn't make sense, and can't be made sensible, you can just say so, and...enough said.

The thing I've offered you is a conversation about why I believe what I believe.

No, that's certainly not the case: "why" has never been your subject. "That" you believe it, sure; but "why" has been absent from your account. But it's the subject I'd like to hear about, and it's the one I've been asking about.

So far, all you've shown is that you believe in Compatibilism. But, of course, beliefs can be rational or irrational. If yours is rational, it seems obvious you ought to be able to say why it's rational.

So...go ahead.

[Flannel Jesus]

No. I don't demand anything. I just ask that you make Compatibilism make sense *for anybody.*

If it doesn't make sense, and can't be made sensible, you can just say so, and...enough said.

The thing I've offered you is a conversation about why I believe what I believe.

No, that's certainly not the case: "why" has never been your subject.

Alright, rewriting history. I'm not gonna go back and look through the post history to prove it, I know what happened when I said I would talk to you about why I think what I think. Screw you for gaslighting me about what happened.

Edit. Just for fun I actually did go and search. Here's literally where I offered to talk about why

viewtopic.php?p=727696#p727696

Go and read again and see how you responded to that offer, and don't give me this "why has never been your subject" bullshit please. I literally offered to talk to you about why and the offer of that conversation wasn't enough for you. Why was quite literally, in my exact words, my subject. Screw you for being dishonest about it.

And that was only the first time I offered to talk about why. The second time you briefly took me up on the offer, before you just quit talking about it. "Why" has literally been my subject multiple times with you.

[Iwannaplato]

Responsibility is also an everyday world issue just like abortion, so the 'free will' in the psychological sense applies, so of course he was responsible. The absolute level deterministic consideration is basically irrelevant.

Which is of course already the practice in court, they know to skip philosophical considerations largely irrelevant to everyday life.

Simple, no?

Maybe. So, what do you say to the guy. He says: Wait you're also a determinist like me, how can you hold me resposible for what was inevitabley caused? Don' tell me this is a mere everyday world issue. I could not have ever done something else. How can you hold me responsible, Atla?

[Atla]

Responsibility is also an everyday world issue just like abortion, so the 'free will' in the psychological sense applies, so of course he was responsible. The absolute level deterministic consideration is basically irrelevant.

Which is of course already the practice in court, they know to skip philosophical considerations largely irrelevant to everyday life.

Simple, no?

Maybe. So, what do you say to the guy. He says: Wait you're also a determinist like me, how can you hold me resposible for what was inevitabley caused? Don' tell me this is a mere everyday world issue. I could not have ever done something else. How can you hold me responsible, Atla?

The same thing I explained above. Determinism is irrelevant in everyday matters.

[Immanuel Can]

The thing I've offered you is a conversation about why I believe what I believe.

No, that's certainly not the case: "why" has never been your subject.

Alright, rewriting history...

Nope. You did use the word "why," but then modified it by saying that you "wouldn't enjoy" or "have an interest" in justifiying Compatiblism itself.

Here's what you promised:

I don't think I've expressed an interest in doing that, I don't think I can do that, I don't think I would enjoy trying to do that, and I have no intention to try to do that.

I could explain to you maybe some of the thought processes that underpin why a lot of compatibilists think the way they do, but that's the best I can offer.

That's not a "why." What I've been asking for is not a referendum on how many irrational Compatibilists there might be in this world. If it turns out that they're simply irrational, then that's unimportant to anybody.

What I've been asking for is a reason why a rational person should believe Compatiblism is actually coherent. What are the reasons. Let's have some philosophy here.

And I have to say, so far, you've given us nothing. And I'm more and more certain that's because you've got nothing. Compatiblism simply cannot be made rational.

Prove me wrong.

[Flannel Jesus]

No, that's certainly not the case: "why" has never been your subject.

Alright, rewriting history...

Nope. You did use the word "why," but then modified it by saying that you "wouldn't enjoy" or "have an interest" in justifiying Compatiblism itself.

Here's what you promised:

I don't think I've expressed an interest in doing that, I don't think I can do that, I don't think I would enjoy trying to do that, and I have no intention to try to do that.

I could explain to you maybe some of the thought processes that underpin why a lot of compatibilists think the way they do, but that's the best I can offer.

That's not a "why."

You're dumb as hell. That's literally why. I don't have an interest in *convincing you compatibilism is true*. I would have (but don't any longer, because you're so irredeemable) had an interest in talking to you cordially about why I'm a compatibilist, talking to you about my train of thought that leads me to compatibilism.

But you just saying "that's not a why" is just so fucking dumb. Are you serious? Me talking to you about the thoughts underpinning why I'm a compatibilist isn't a why? It literally says "why" right there ffs. You're just too dumb.

[Iwannaplato]

The first time you started badgering FJ you misunderstood the context of his posts. I believe you interpreted a post where he was defining compatibilism with him justifying compatibilism or asserting that it was the case. He kept telling you that he was neither justifying nor asserting the truth of it be responded to someone else who seemed confused about what it meant. Of course one can misinterpret a post, but after he repeatedly told you what he had done you continued to act as if he had done something else.

You've found a new way to do the same thing here. Why not go back to accusing people of being women because they are emotional or your ridiculous posturing in other threads where you do at least manage to read the posts you respond to.

[Immanuel Can]

Alright, rewriting history...

Nope. You did use the word "why," but then modified it by saying that you "wouldn't enjoy" or "have an interest" in justifiying Compatiblism itself.

Here's what you promised:

I don't think I've expressed an interest in doing that, I don't think I can do that, I don't think I would enjoy trying to do that, and I have no intention to try to do that.

I could explain to you maybe some of the thought processes that underpin why a lot of compatibilists think the way they do, but that's the best I can offer.

That's not a "why."

You're dumb as hell...

I noticed you had to clip off the rest of my message and ignore it, and then to go ad hominem as sharply as you could, in the hopes of making a "red herring" I'd follow. And it's clear why: you knew I was right. You've given no real "why," at all.

But I can see you're not interested in admitting that. However, I'm not so reticent.

Apparently, there is no "why" it is rational to believe in Compatibilism...at least, none you've been able to suggest. That makes it much more attractive for you to deflect than to respond sensibly or with reasons.

But that point is made, I think.

[Immanuel Can]

I believe you interpreted a post where he was defining compatibilism with him justifying compatibilism or asserting that it was the case.

You "believe," do you?

Well, so do Compatibilists. But their belief is no more warranted than yours, it seems.

I made no mistake about FJ. I asked him if Compatiblism could be rationalized. He said he wasn't interested in whether or not it was rational, but only in the personal motivations people had for believing it. He didn't want to defend it, because he couldn't.

But if Compatiblism is irrational, then it doesn't matter how many people believe it -- in fact, the more that believe in it, the worse that is for us all. Irrational beliefs do not add up to good things for the human race.

[henry quirk]

A person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property.

-----

Robinson Crusoe lives alone on an island. He claims the island as his "property". A shipwreck causes 30 more people to swim to the island. "You can't stay here. It's mine," shouts Robinson. Does he have a "right" to assert these "property rights" (which will cause the ship wrecked sailors to drown)? Wouldn't asserting his property rights conflict with the law of magnanimity, and with the rights to life and liberty of the sailors?

RC may have a claim on the island (he doesn't as I'll explain) but he has no claim on the sailors. He cannot morally demand they sacrifice themselves (their lives) becuz they've merely set foot on his island. His natural rights cannot trump theirs. They are co-equal. They are stymied as neither side has the moral ace card.

But then, he has no claim to the whole of the island to begin with.

How is property morally acquired? Thru fair and voluntary trade (not applicable here [RC is a castaway himself]), thru inheritance, or thru direct labor or labor thru proxy. Certainly, RC can justly expel the sailors from the hut he built or the garden he planted or the fishery where he laid his traps. He can justly deny the sailors access to his clothes, his tools, and his sundries. But unless he's mixed his labor with the whole of the island (cultivated every foot of it, put his mark on all the animals) he has no moral claim to all of it.

Now, someone might point out there's nuthin' in a person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property that is about acquiring property. There is: follow my reasoning...

A person's property (Joe's car, for example) can't be acquired morally except thru a fair and voluntary transaction or inheritance. If I want Joe's car I have to meet his price or be among his favored. Creating property is, I think, self-explanatory. I take lumber I've harvested with permission or from unclaimed woodland and build a ladderback chair. It's mine to use, to sell, to give away, or destroy. If Wally wants to morally claim my chair he'll have to meet my price.

The King claims his entire country as his property, by divine right. Robin Hood is starving and shoots a deer on the King's property. Does the king have a natural right to have Robin Hood hanged?

Unless the King, or government, has fairly transacted for the land or personally (or by proxy) invested labor into the unclaimed land, the claim is not legit. Robin hasn't stolen and ought not hang. Going further: the king, or government, is illegitimate. Only those who have consented to be ruled or governed can be. Those who deny consent or withdraw consent cannot be. To say otherwise is to deny those who deny or withdraw consent their own lives, liberties, and properties. This is called slavery.

A man owns slaves. They are his property, by law and because he paid for them. Don't his property rights conflict with their right to liberty? How is this conflict to be adjudicated?

One person cannot morally own another. To lay claim to another is to deny him his own life, liberty, and property.

How can a man have a natural moral claim to property when property is defined differently in different cultures, countries and clans? If one lives in a small, hunting and gathering clan, what do such "rights' consist of? If you live in a communist country?

By way of legislation all manner of natural rights abuse is sanctioned thus rendering the legislation and legislators immoral. Even in the most primitive of communities private property was respected (my bow, my knife, my hut, my paints, my talisman, my turtle shell, etc.). Even in the old Soviet Union, personal possessions were squirreled away to preserve them from the authorities who had no claim in those things (the authorities didn't buy, build, or inherit).

So RC's, the King's, the slaver's, the community's, and the State's claims are not examples of natural rights gone wrong but are instead examples of natural rights denied.

As I say: there's no way to use natural rights as a justification for murder, rape, slavery, theft, and fraud while preserving the original meaning of natural rights.

[Flannel Jesus]

I made no mistake about FJ. I asked him if Compatiblism could be rationalized. He said he wasn't interested in whether or not it was rational, but only in the personal motivations people had for believing it. He didn't want to defend it, because he couldn't.

None of those things happened you weirdo. Keep spinning made up stories, say I never wanted to talk about why literally with a quote right in front of you where I offer to talk about why. You've lost it.

[Alexiev]

RC may have a claim on the island (he doesn't as I'll explain) but he has no claim on the sailors. He cannot morally demand they sacrifice themselves (their lives) becuz they've merely set foot on his island. His natural rights cannot trump theirs. They are co-equal. They are stymied as neither side has the moral ace card.

But then, he has no claim to the whole of the island to begin with.

How is property morally acquired? Thru fair and voluntary trade (not applicable here [RC is a castaway himself]), thru inheritance, or thru direct labor or labor thru proxy. Certainly, RC can justly expel the sailors from the hut he built or the garden he planted or the fishery where he laid his traps. He can justly deny the sailors access to his clothes, his tools, and his sundries. But unless he's mixed his labor with the whole of the island (cultivated every foot of it, put his mark on all the animals) he has no moral claim to all of it.

Now, someone might point out there's nuthin' in a person, any person, anywhere or when, has an absolute moral claim -- a natural right -- to his, and no one else's, life, liberty, and property that is about acquiring property. There is: follow my reasoning...

A person's property (Joe's car, for example) can't be acquired morally except thru a fair and voluntary transaction or inheritance. If I want Joe's car I have to meet his price or be among his favored. Creating property is, I think, self-explanatory. I take lumber I've harvested with permission or from unclaimed woodland and build a ladderback chair. It's mine to use, to sell, to give away, or destroy. If Wally wants to morally claim my chair he'll have to meet my price.

Fine. Except all property rights conflict with liberty. In fact, that's all they do. What else can property rights mean except the obligation of one person to limit his freedom vis a vis another person's property? So the "natural rights" to property ALWAYS trump someone else's natural right to liberty (or vice versa). This is obvious. Nor does it mean (automatically) that there is anything immoral about property. It simply means that the natural rights you worship are more complicated and nuanced than you suggest.

By way of legislation all manner of natural rights abuse is sanctioned thus rendering the legislation and legislators immoral. Even in the most primitive of communities private property was respected (my bow, my knife, my hut, my paints, my talisman, my turtle shell, etc.). Even in the old Soviet Union, personal possessions were squirreled away to preserve them from the authorities who had no claim in those things (the authorities didn't buy, build, or inherit).

So RC's, the King's, the slaver's, the community's, and the State's claims are not examples of natural rights gone wrong but are instead examples of natural rights denied

.

Except that how property is defined differs wildly from culture to culture. Can someone "own" land (i.e. control other people vis a vis that land)? Not in many societies. Does someone "own" the food he kills or gathers? Not in many societies. Our definitions of and protections for property vary wildly, which seems to indicate that they are culturally (not "naturally") constituted. We can determine how we want to define property and what "rights" (i.e. obligations on others) it entails. That includes easements, zoning laws, taxes, etc., etc. There's no use complaining that these limits violate natural rights, because all property rights are fiat rights, and inevitably conflict with liberty.