What could make morality objective?

[uwot]

Is this a "state of nature" argument, Henry?

I don't know what that is.

Oh. It's just an argument that kinda goes, "When men were in caves, we were all free. Civilization's what's messed us up." That sort of argument got popular back in the 18th Century, but hasn't been common since.

I didn't think you we're making one of those, but it sort of sounded like maybe...

Duh! Does Henry's avatar not show on your slate?

[Skepdick]

Not even a remotely relevant question.
We all die.
It's not a matter of choice.

Not even a remotely relevant response.

WHEN you die is a matter of choice.

You could die sooner; or you could die later. Choice.

[Sculptor]

Whatever it is you say the, "other animal species are capable of caring," about. You're the one who thinks they are capable of caring about something, not me.

If you don't know what "IT" is then you comment is meaningless.
Why take the trouble to contradict me when you don't know what you are talking about. The Forum is conflictual enough without gratuitous remarks.

Perhaps you forgot. I know the threads become confused. It referred to this exchange:

Extinction of humanity is probably going to happen at some point; sooner the better.
The rest of the earth would also suffer. ...

Not for long, and afterward nothing would care.

Other animal species are capable of caring.

"It," is the, "human extinction," you referred to, which I'm sure is not imminent. Even if it were, I'm certain no other organism will care.

Does that answer your question?

No.
You said "Not for long, and afterward nothing would care.". I said other animals are capable. You did not say what about.
Please keep up.
There is more to life than humans.

[Sculptor]

Not even a remotely relevant question.
We all die.
It's not a matter of choice.

Not even a remotely relevant response.

WHEN you die is a matter of choice.

You could die sooner; or you could die later. Choice.

All death is necessary. Therefore death is good.
Choice is not relevant.
Your premise that death is bad is false.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A fact is either a state-of-affairs or a description of a state-of-affairs. A state-of-affairs exists independent from opinion, and has no truth-value. Am I right to assume you understand this and agree with this account of the way we use the word fact? (I'm doubtful, because your expression 'justified moral fact' is incoherent if by 'fact' you mean 'state-of-affairs'.)

If so, to say there are moral facts is to say there are moral states-of-affairs that exist independent from opinion. And that's the claim you have to justify by meeting your burden of proof. Just saying there are moral facts is useless. You have to show why a moral assertion such as 'slavery is wrong' describes a state-of-affairs that exists independent from opinion.

Between 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth isn't flat', there's a fact of the matter - a state-of-affairs - that settles the argument, regardless of anyone's opinion. Now please show the fact of the matter - the state-of-affairs - that settles the argument between 'slavery is morally wrong' and 'slavery isn't morally wrong' - regardless of anyone's opinion. Because that's what objectivity means.

Rather than 'the earth is flat' and 'the earth isn't flat', it would be more accurate to say the "the Earth has a Spherical Planet' which represent a state-of-affairs.
I presume you will agree this is a scientific fact [astronomy] and that is objective.
I agree that would be independent of anyone's subjective opinion.

BUT I had claimed 'objectivity' is intersubjectivity, i.e. grounded on intersubjective consensus.
As such a fact or your 'state-of-affairs' while independent of anyone's subjective opinion, it cannot be totally-independent of the human conditions.
While a scientific fact is objective, it it fundamentally at best a polished conjecture [according to Karl Popper] or in a way, it is a polished-opinion, i.e. polished by a community of astronomers and other authorized participants.
"Group polished opinion' in this case is polished to be a justified-true-belief specific within the Scientific Framework, Scientific Methods, Peer Review, and other prerequisites.

Therefore a fact or your 'state-of-affairs' whilst independent of anyone's subjective opinion, it is not independent of a group of humans-polished-opinions.

All you and Henry have offered, by way of evidence, is that everyone thinks slavery is morally wrong. But so what? That's just their opinion.

If the only evidence for the claim that the earth isn't flat were that everyone thinks the earth isn't flat - would that be conclusive?

Individual[s] may have a subjective opinion on 'slavery is right or wrong' and yes such individual's opinion cannot be a fact or in this case a moral fact.

If everyone individually thinks the "Earth isn't flat" that is not objective. There is no collective intersubjective consensus in this claim.

To be objective it that has to be backed with verified and justified evidence within a framework of knowledge [Science - Astronomy for example] and has sufficient intersubjective consensus among its peers.
It is on this basis with the Scientific Framework that it is a scientific fact that the "Earth is not flat" but rather in some sort of spherical shape.

There is no fact, truth, reality that is independent of a specific framework of the realization of reality. There is only scientific truths, legal truths, common sense truths, economic truths, x-related-reality. There is no truth or reality that can exists by itself. Note Kant's there is no thing-in-itself or things-in-themselves. Show me there is anything contrary to this claim.

The claim that 'slavery is absolute wrong' is not based purely on the point that everyone thinks 'slavery is wrong'.
That 'slavery is wrong' is inferred from what the default human would experience with being enslaved. This is backed by empirical evidence of human experiences throughout its history.
In the case of moral fact, there is no need for a collective consensus, but rather it is reasoned based on available empirical evidence. Example of this is the same with Arithmetic, i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 which need not be based on some arrangement of collective consensus like Science's peer review.
In this case of Arithmetical fact, it is reasoned to be given and universal to all human beings, and this can be tested. This is the same with moral fact.

This absolute moral principle, "slavery is wrong" can be tested.
In this case, ask any sane human being whether he/she want to be enslaved or not.
It would be confirmed within psychiatry those who want to be enslaved [chattel slavery] are likely to have a mental problem.

You seem to be stucked with "individual opinion" but missed out on collective intersubjective consensus [as in Science] and reasoning from the universality of human conditions as in moral fact.

This is unmitigated nonsense.

You are so sure it is unmitigated nonsense because you are very ignorant of the various perspectives in Philosophy.

The shape of the earth is a fact - a state-of-affairs - which is completely, utterly and entirely independent from opinion. It is what it is whatever anyone thinks or says about it - whatever can be thought or said about it.

The above only reflect your ignorance.
Note I mentioned to you the contention between the Philosophical Realists versus Philosophical Anti-Realist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

I explained the difference between individual opinion and collective-consensus on justified true belief but you do not understand [not necessary to agree] the difference.

What we say about things is, of course, conventional and contextual. And things can be described in a limitless number of ways for different purposes. So what we call categories and properties are always - and can only be - within a descriptive context. But the existence of a thing, and of what we call its properties, are completely, utterly and entirely independent from opinion - so they are objective.

The above is based on your ignorance of the fundamentals of Philosophy.
What you are describing is the 'essence' or 'substance' of a thing that is claimed to be independent of a person's subjective opinion.

Substance theory, or substance–attribute theory, is an ontological theory about objecthood positing that a substance is distinct from its properties. A thing-in-itself is a property-bearer that must be distinguished from the properties it bears.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_theory

Substance theory has been heavily countered since the ancient Greeks, e.g. Heraclitus, Protagoras [Man is the measure of all things], etc.
Note this; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance ... #Criticism

If you think the moral wrongness of slavery is a real thing that exists independent from opinion, that's what you have to demonstrate. Saying that people think and say slavery is morally wrong - there's a collective consensus that it's morally wrong - is useless in this discussion, so there's no point repeating it.

I have already demonstrated via evidence and reason why 'slavery is morally wrong.'

Apart from in la-la-land, saying something is so doesn't make it so. It follows that everyone's saying it's so doesn't make it so either. Everyone's saying the earth is an oblate spheroid doesn't make it an oblate spheroid. And everyone's saying slavery is morally wrong doesn't make it morally wrong. But we can demonstrate the earth is what we call an oblate spheroid. Now - how can you demonstrate that slavery is what we call morally wrong?

Yes, the Earth is only oblate spheriod as conditioned by the Framework of Astronomy and Geometry based on consensus within people of authority within those community. This is objective but the fundamental of this objectivity is subjectivity, i.e. intersubjective consensus of the subjects [astronomers scientists].
Therefore that the Earth is 'oblate spheriod' is not fully and totally independent of the human conditions and opinions [collective] at all.

In a way, the Earth is attributed as an oblate spheriod is merely a polished conjecture or collective opinions of experts.
The Earth only looked oblate spheriod from a certain distance but that the Earth has mountains, seas [changes with the moon], valleys, irregular surface do not make it oblate spheriod in the real sense.
In reality the Earth has of more a multi-polygon shape than being a sphere.

So what is objective is dependent on subjects' consensus, thus intersubjective.
There is no way a supposedly objective fact is totally [100%] independent of subjective elements.

Thus what is a moral fact that is objective is ascertainable from empirical evidence and the highest mode of reason. In the case where it is based on the highest mode of reason there is no need for a collective consensus as such, e.g. like 1+1=2 is objective which can be tested.

From empirical evidences and the highest reason, "slavery is morally wrong" is objective and this can be tested and verified by confirming this proposition with all sane human beings on Earth.
You can personally start the test by asking yourself the question, then extent that to your spouse, family, kins, relative, friends, groups, to the wider world.

You are free to reject the above but I would say you are really ignorant of the various fundamentals and contentious issues raised with Philosophy.
You cannot jumped to conclusion without understanding [not necessary agree] those contentious issues.

[RCSaunders]

There is more to life than humans.

Not that matters, but if you think so, I cannot argue with it.

[henry quirk]

The wise words of a good friend (and a good night's sleep) have reset me.

I've been thinkin' a lot about my argument in this thread and it's sound.

What's not so sound: my approach.

So: I await Pete's predictable dismissal of what I've posted so far: then, it's my turn.

[Skepdick]

All death is necessary. Therefore death is good.

Your premise is that death is necessary is also false. Therefore your conclusion is invalid and unsound.

Choice is not relevant.

You could have chosen another premise, but you didn't.

Choice is essential.

Your premise that death is bad is false.

Even if premise was false (which it isn't) it doesn't make your premise true.

That's another false dichotomy.

[RCSaunders]

I have never understood why theists, especially Christians, have been taken in by the concept of altruism, even though sacrifice and self-sacrifice are Biblical concepts.

They're more than that. They're mandated for Christians.

Yes!

The word "altruism" is apparently Compte's -- but the concept is decidedly not original with him.

Mark Twain observed that Adam had one advantage over all others in that he knew whenever he said something, it was original. Since then, there is almost no idea that is original, especially bad ideas, like altruism.

When I was very young and was taught in Sunday school, that selfishness was wrong and only unselfishness (altruism) was good, I knew there was something wrong with what I was being taught. When I asked why I should be unselfish and give up what I wanted for the sake of someone else who would then be getting what they wanted thus making them selfish, I of course, received no answer.

Heh. You had a bad Sunday School teacher.

You don't want to say that, IC. It was not just Sunday School teachers, it was every Christian I've ever asked those questions of, and they all give the same non-answers as you.

When I was told I should be unselfish because that pleased God and I would be blessed for it, it was obvious to me that everything everyone did was selfish--because they expected something good to result from their so-called unselfishness.

I can't say what you found in your own heart on that account. I believe you. But I there's a serious problem with that hypothesis: it's incorrigible. That is, like Determinism, it cannot be proved, but also cannot be falsified. There's no act anyone can point to that a cynic can't say was ultimately "selfish," even if that's not the case.

That's exactly the kind of non-answer I always receive, or perhaps I should say, evasion, because it evades the question. You are right, "there's no act anyone can point to that a one can't say was ultimately 'selfish.'" If you believe that is not true, all you have to do is provide an example of one such case of someone doing something, that, in their own best estimate, is not ultimately in their own best interest. Giving up something short-term for something better long term or sacrificing something of lesser value to gain something of greater value does not count.

• Why did that mother go through labour for that child? Because she was selfish, and wanted a kid.

Your the one who would call that, "selfish," I call it normal.

• Why did that soldier lay down his life? He thought it would make him a hero, and he'd live on in people's memories.

You don't want to use this one. A soldier who willingly, "lays down his life," is a fool willing to die for some collectivist lie. It is very difficult to convince young men they ought to die without first convincing them there is some, "greater reward," even another life, that makes their death worth it. That game is not so successful today and has been replaced by the promise that becoming a professional murderer is risky, but "you probably won't die," and you'll be rewarded with all kinds of free things, like education, a pension, and free health care, etc.

• Why did that man donate his kidney? He wanted gratitude from the donee, and he hoped the press would show up and say what a great guy he was...

This is how you think? All the one's I know who have made that kind of choice have done so because the one who benefited was someone they loved so much, they would do anything not to lose them. There is no shortage of fools, however, who have bought the altruist lies and regularly throw themselves into the volcano to save their people.

It might just be cynical. And personally, I think it is.

It is cynical. It's the opposite of that gullibility that believes all those things that lead to self-destruction.

It's a mistake to think that having a reason to sacrifice is the same as having a selfish reason to sacrifice.

Well, you've got me there. I just do not see the difference between having, "a reason," and having, "a selfish reason." If someone has a reason, isn't it necessarily their own reason? Is there something about a reason belonging to one's self that, in some mysterious way, taints it?

Everyone has some reason for what they do; but some motives are higher, and some are lower than others. In Christian thought, the reason for sacrifice is faith: the putting off of immediate gratification, sometimes to an extraordinary degree, out of an expression of gratitude to and belief in God. Is that selfish? Looked at one way, the cynic could say, "Yes." But looked at fairly, the case is harder to make. After all, the sacrificer, in this case, is prepared to risk proximal, comparatively certain and immediately appealing rewards for something only verbally promised by God, and by all accounts, something quite opaque to human imagination.

Is that selfish? There's no means to prove it's not. But I think that's unduly cynical. There's also no basis to prove it is. The hypothesis of universal egoism is, thus, a null hypothesis. It may remain appealing to the cynic; but its real applicability cannot ever be gauged.

I really think you miss my point. I don't care what terms you use, selfishness, altruism, or sacrifice, if they mean ultimately giving up, surrendering, or destroying anything of a higher value for the sake of anything of a lower value they are immoral. We may disagree on what determines the value of anything (and we certainly do), but whatever one's value system is, within that context, sacrificing a higher value to a lower value is wrong.

You can say that is not what you mean by altruism, unselfishness, or sacrifice, and maybe you really don't. But I'm certain, as soon as we end this discussion, that's the way you will use those terms in the future.

Altruism is the morality of collectivism with no other purpose than to justify the sacrifice of others to their collective causes. Even you have bought the collectivist lie that ethical principles are, "social."

You must mean Comptean altruism. Or maybe the alleged altruism of perspectives like Neo-Marxism.

No, I was referring to your next statement:

... after all, ethics begin with the existence of at least two people, for ethics are relational values, ...

===================================
Just a clarification: I wrote, "Since you despise her so much, let me quote Rand," to which you commmented, "I don't despise her. I disagree with her, and she amuses me. Our relationship is quite companionable." I only meant her philosophy, not her person, and "despise," only in the sense of "disdain" or "regarding as having no value," as, "... Esau despised his birthright.” [Gen. 25:34]
===================================

"You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island—it is on a desert island that he would need it most." ...

I know about all this. I just think she's quite wrong. And apparently, so do you; for you speak of how it is an asset to "know how to relate to others morally." But if we take Rand seriously, this is no point in favour of morality at all -- morality only concerns the individual, she says.

Where? You better have a reference for that, else it is simply a lie. A quote from anything she ever wrote saying that will do. Her only point, relative to others is that an individual who is not moral themselves can never have moral relationships with others.

Just so you'll know what she did say about social relationships—

The two great values to be gained from social existence are: knowledge and trade. Man is the only species that can transmit and expand his store of knowledge from generation to generation; the knowledge potentially available to man is greater than any one man could begin to acquire in his own lifespan; every man gains an incalculable benefit from the knowledge discovered by others. The second great benefit is the division of labor: it enables a man to devote his effort to a particular field of work and to trade with others who specialize in other fields. This form of cooperation allows all men who take part in it to achieve a greater knowledge, skill and productive return on their effort than they could achieve if each had to produce everything he needs, on a desert island or on a self-sustaining farm.

But these very benefits indicate, delimit and define what kind of men can be of value to one another and in what kind of society: Only rational, productive, independent men in a rational, productive, free society." [The Virtue of Selfishness, "The Objectivist Ethics"]

You are right, of course, when you say that collectivism disintegrates human cooperation and comes to "dog-eat-dog." Only free, independent men can cooperate and feel benevolence toward one another. But they can do it only because (and only so long as) they know that cooperation will involve no pain or injury to them—that is, no demand for self-sacrifice. [Letter to Rose Wilder Lane, November 3, 1946]

Of course, Individualism doesn't mean isolation, aloofness or escaping to a desert island. In fact, only true Individualists are fit to associate with other men. But they do it only on the basis of the recognition of each man's essential independence: each man lives primarily for, by and through himself and recognizes the same right in others; all relations among men are secondary; men are legally and morally free to associate together or not, on any particular occasion, as their personal interests dictate. There is the pattern of a free, moral society, of human cooperation, and of benevolence among men. [Letter to Rose Wilder Lane, November 3, 1946]

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights—and that a group, as such, has no rights other than the individual rights of its members.[The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, "Racism"]

The [individualist] in the absolute sense ... is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men." [For the New Intellectual—The Fountainhead, "The Soul Of An Individualist"]

In point of fact, she (and Galt) is wrong about the desert island. If we imagine a universe with only one sentient being in it, John Galt, we cannot defend the idea that he owes a single duty to a single thing...not even to himself. ...

Ah that "magic" meaningless word, duty. After altruism, it is perhaps one of the most evil concepts ever thrust on the world. No one is born with some unearned obligation to anyone or anything. When anything for which there is no rational or moral reason is demanded of individuals, the magic word, "duty," is invoked. In the name of duty men can be persuaded to do anything, to kill others in foreign lands, to violently molest people in the name of one's duty to uphold the law (no matter what that law is—think police), to restrict other people's freedom. You are absolutely right, that "the idea that he (or anyone) owes a single duty to a single thing...not even to himself," can be defended. There is no such unearned obligation as duty."

Why should he not saw off his own leg or head, if he were so inclined? If he did, who would say, "John Galt, what doest thou?" Nobody.

Because we are talking about objective moral principles, which are those by which a rational human being must guide his life and make all his decisions if he is to live happily and successfully in this world. Such an individual never makes his choices based on feelings, desires, whims, or irrational inclinations.

A rational individual with those objective values does not need someone or something else to tell him it is not in his own best interest to cut off a perfectly healthy limb. Only someone who has surrendered his own reason to some authority, such as one that recommends cutting of one's limbs [Matthew 5:30] or is suffering from Body Integrity Identity Disorder could even consider such an absurd question.

The evidence of the benefit to mankind of those pursuing their own, "selfish," moral principles is irrefutable.

Pardon me, RC, but I have to say that I love it when people say "the evidence of X is irrefutable." It invariably means, "I don't want you to examine me too closely on X."

I love it when people say, "invariably it means ..." followed by their own meaning never intended by the one quoted. [Sorry, couldn't resist the sarcasm. I'm actually sorry to hear that kind of argument.] The reason I included the evidence was so you could examine it.

Between 1785 and 1958 (just 173 years) the following discoveries and inventions were made...

Ah, but how easy it is to destroy this argument.

The Collectivist merely points out that none of these individuals made his discovery in isolation. Every one of them was a member of a society, of a discipline, of an education, of an opportunity...and of a host of other things that came from other people. Not one of them made his achievement floating in a vacuum in space. And each invention was brought about on the shoulders of the inventions of previous persons in a long line of invention and innovation. Not only did present society contribute to the achievement, but a long line of past societies were also essential to each individuals achievements.

Did Goodyear discover rubber? No, he inherited it.

Charles Goodyear, a, "self-taught," chemist, invented the chemical process called vulcanization that made all useful rubber products possible. Read his story. It is typical of the kind of intransigent dedication to the pursuit of one's own vision of all individualist creators.

Implying that what Goodyear did was some kind of, "inheritance," is deceitful. Why would you do that? I'll assume it was a mistake, even though Rand suggested, mistakes of that magnitude are not accidents.

So the Collectivist simply says, "You're oversimplifying the case."

And that's true. We must grant that.

"WE," certainly do not!

Years ago the same collectivist arguments you just used were used to claim the reason the United States became the most prosperous and powerful nation in the world was because it was so rich in raw material and resources, not because of the creative power of individuals using their minds and effort to discover how to use those resources to produce and create that wealth and power. That worked until someone observed that human beings had been on this continent with all those same resources under their feet for thousands of years without producing anything much above mere survival.

At any time in history, there is some accumulated knowledge, some form of cultural structure, commerce, materials, previously developed which are the resources available to all men at those times. Though all those things are available to everyone, they do not produce any advances in knowledge, wealth, production or technology on their own. It is always only the creative genius and ruthless effort of those individuals who use those resources to make the new discoveries and create new technologies that provide every improvement and advance in knowledge and the condition of human life.

Why are you arguing like a collectivist?

So long as you do not wish to force your views on anyone else...

What does this phrase mean? Again, I am always amazed when I see it.

How can one "force" one's views on another person?

I know you would not personally use coercive force to make others behave as you would like, and, I am sure you are sincere when you say would not even consider such a thing. Most people do not, and yet they indirectly contribute to the use force to those ends.

If you vote for or support laws that empower government agents to enforce laws that regulate others lives regarding such things as your views on abortion, the forced education of others children, marriage, taxes, any regulation of business or the economy, how individuals use their own property and wealth, etc. you are using force to impose your views on others by proxy. I didn't suggest you do any of those things, I only said, "So long as you do not," do them ..., "we at least have that in common, a benevolence I truly appreciate."

We've done well in the past; I see no reason to discontinue that now.

Yes we have, and quite frankly, I'm sometimes pleasantly surprised, because I am not a compromiser and am unapologetically ruthless in expressing my opinions, and we are both radicals in our views. It is actually a wonderful illustration of how individuals, no matter how different, can interact benevolently when all coercion is excluded and reason is the only basis of their relationship.

[Skepdick]

Mark Twain observed that Adam had one advantage over all others in that he knew whenever he said something, it was original. Since then, there is almost no idea that is original, especially bad ideas, like altruism.

All that you are doing is creating an unnecessary tension between altruism and self-interest.

If your self-interests align with the common good then self-interest+altruism is a better idea than either one of them alone.

That's why capitalism is exactly the same idea as socialism. I want to get rich while making society better.

sacrificing something of lesser value to gain something of greater value does not count.

There are countless examples of people paying the ultimate price for things they thought were worth much more than themselves.

A soldier who willingly, "lays down his life," is a fool willing to die for some collectivist lie.

I can always pose the question as: "What individual cost is unacceptable to you?"

Would you risk your life to save a 7th cousin's life? 1st cousin? A parent? A sibling? Your wife? Your child?

Are you a father willing to die for the collectivist lie we call "family"?

[RCSaunders]

Mark Twain observed that Adam had one advantage over all others in that he knew whenever he said something, it was original. Since then, there is almost no idea that is original, especially bad ideas, like altruism.

All that you are doing is creating an unnecessary tension between altruism and self-interest.

If your self-interests align with the common good then self-interest+altruism is a better idea than either one of them alone.

That's why capitalism is exactly the same idea as socialism. I want to get rich while making society better.

If your comment is meant for me, I'm afraid you are attributing to me ideas I have never entertained. I am totally a-political and regard all governments as evil. Governments are agencies of force with no other purpose than to control others to fulfill whatever purpose those with government power choose. I regard all use of coercive force as immoral.

[Technically, capitalism is not a form of government, like democracy, socialism, fascism, communism, empire, or a monarchy. Capitalism is actually an economic principle, and those who favor a government they think will support a, "free economy," and," individual freedom," believe capitalism can flourish under such a political system and call it, "capitalist."]

The only dichotomy you can accuse me of is the dichotomy between, "total individual freedom," and, "any form of government." I regard the former as the only moral state of a human being.

[Skepdick]

If your comment is meant for me, I'm afraid you are attributing to me ideas I have never entertained. I am totally a-political and regard all governments as evil.

So you do not govern your children? They are free to do as they please? I don't believe you!

To be a-political is to reject any claims to self-interests.

Governments are agencies of force with no other purpose than to control others to fulfill whatever purpose those with government power choose. I regard all use of coercive force as immoral.

So what purpose does discipline fulfil in your household? Are you suggesting that your children are undisciplined?

[Technically, capitalism is not a form of government, like democracy, socialism, fascism, communism, empire, or a monarchy. Capitalism is actually an economic principle, and those who favor a government they think will support a, "free economy," and," individual freedom," believe capitalism can flourish under such a political system and call it, "capitalist."]

The power hierarchies of capitalism and socialism coincide. Either government becomes business or business becomes government. The dichotomy is bullshit.

The eternal struggle for "freedom lovers" is to keep the two entities separate. Separating church and state is the same thing as separating business and state.

The only dichotomy you can accuse me of is the dichotomy between, "total individual freedom," and, "any form of government." I regard the former as the only moral state of a human being.

I am accusing you of not believing in anarchy. Sounds to me that you are political about freedom.

What do you propose be done to deal with people who rob you of freedom? You aren't going to put together some structure/institution to deal with such problems, are you?!?! Are you suggest we turn the other cheek when robbed of freedoms?

[RCSaunders]

sacrificing something of lesser value to gain something of greater value does not count.

There are countless examples of people paying the ultimate price for things they thought were worth much more than themselves.

There are countless examples of people who kill themselves overdosing on drugs every day. There is no shortage of ignorant gullible people willing throw their lives away for things of no value. I agree with you.

A soldier who willingly, "lays down his life," is a fool willing to die for some collectivist lie.

I can always pose the question as: "What individual cost is unacceptable to you?"

Would you risk your life to save a 7th cousin's life? 1st cousin? A parent? A sibling? Your wife? Your child?

Are you a father willing to die for the collectivist lie we call "family"?

I would not sacrifice my life for anyone. For those I love, I will do everything I can to stay alive to protect them and provide them with all I possibly can. I certainly won't be any good to them if I'm dead.

[Skepdick]

I would not sacrifice my life for anyone.

For those I love, I will do everything I can to stay alive to protect them and provide them with all I possibly can.

I certainly won't be any good to them if I'm dead.

*scratch head*

What would you do if somebody put a gun to your wife's head and said "I'm going to make love to her now".

Let him go for it?

You are no good to your wife dead - no point in fighting back and risk dying.

[Sculptor]

All death is necessary. Therefore death is good.

Your premise is that death is necessary is also false. Therefore your conclusion is invalid and unsound.

Death is completely necessary. Everything dies, even stars.

Choice is not relevant.

You could have chosen another premise, but you didn't.

Choice is essential.

Your premise that death is bad is false.

Even if premise was false (which it isn't) it doesn't make your premise true.

That's another false dichotomy.

You are arguing against yourself.

But as far as the two premises go, mine has much more to recommend it.
Game set and match.