Philosophy Now Forum

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?).

Further: If a man -- religious or not -- can recognize his life, liberty, and property 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?).

And: If a man -- religious or not -- can recognize violation against his life, liberty, and property warrant consequence (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?).

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 7:09 pm 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?).

Further: If a man -- religious or not -- can recognize his life, liberty, and property 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?).

And: If a man -- religious or not -- can recognize violation against his life, liberty, and property warrant consequence (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?).

Erm, sure. The first is a flowery way of saying I have agency. The second is the tautologous observation that what belongs to me is mine and what belongs to you is yours. And the third just says that actions have consequences, and moral actions may have moral consequence.

But from that, lot it's a big step to try to use reciprocal property rights as the basis for all morality. And there's a bigger step still to go from whatever gets you there (your 3rd rule won't do it) to actual moral reality which states moral facts, with facts being that thing where disagreeing with them is actually somehow demonstrably mistaken.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:03 pm Seems to me do no harm is embedded in line 3...

Seems to me it isn't...

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:03 pm 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.

So if a man ignorantly deprives another (in part or whole) of life, liberty, or property then they are exempt?

Your society doesn't recognise involuntary manslaughter as a crime?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:03 pm 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.

Ohhh! So I can come to your town drunk drive and speed as much as I want to and shoot my gun as I please and where I please? But until I actually hurt somebody you ain't gonna stop me?

And, of course, since your criminal system only recognise willful intent, but not negligence I'll just plead it was an accident when I eventually kill somebody. And I expect your justice system to side with my innocence.

Erm, sure.

we agree?

oh my

But from that lot it's a big step to...

with you it's insurmountable: you're an amoralist...nuthin' will satisfy you as moral fact or as basis of moral fact

but then: it doesn't have to

you agree you're your own; you agree your life, liberty, and property are yours; you agree a consequence ought be levied against another if he violates your life, liberty, or property; you agree a consequence ought be levied against you if you violate another's life, liberty, or property

between you and me: there's an accord...we can cooperate now

Your society doesn't recognise involuntary manslaughter as a crime?

there is murder (killing knowingly, willingly, without just cause); there's self-, other-, property-defense (killing knowingly, willfully, with just cause); there's killing (unknowingly, without intent)

So I can come to your town drunk drive and speed as much as I want to and shoot my gun as I please and where I please? But until I actually hurt somebody you ain't gonna stop me?

pretty much, yeah

And, of course, since your criminal system only recognise willful intent, but not negligence I'll just plead it was an accident when I eventually kill somebody.

And I expect your justice system to side with my innocence.

That depends on the evidence. If your mind is sound: the court will ask if you were aware of the possible consequences of your actions. If you say yeah, you might be found guilty.

You have to remember: the people of the Free Zone are natural rights minarchists. By definition they take self-responsibility seriously. The question did he kill -- with car, with bullet -- is answered based on your willingness, your knowledge, your cause

I reckon you'd be found guilty of killing and penalized (which is better than murder and possibly a death sentence)

these are matters that move from theory to practical application (which is the purview of the other thread)

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:46 pm Erm, sure.

we agree?

oh my

But from that lot it's a big step to...

with you it's insurmountable: you're an amoralist...nuthin' will satisfy you as moral fact or as basis of moral fact

If I'm wrong, some sort of demonstration of fact would resolve that.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 10:46 pm but then: it doesn't have to

you agree you're your own; you agree your life, liberty, and property are yours; you agree a consequence ought be levied against another if he violates your life, liberty, or property; you agree a consequence ought be levied against you if you violate another's life, liberty, or property

between you and me: there's an accord...we can cooperate now

Sure. I guess there's a lowest common denominator. Those work up until the moment anything remotely contentious crops up though, and they turn out not be sufficient.

After that, a tautology that it's bad to do bad things turns out to be no basis for new knowledge, because .... that's what tautologies can famously never be.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:08 pm That depends on the evidence. If your mind is sound: the court will ask if you were aware of the possible consequences of your actions. If you say yeah, you might be found guilty.

Of what crime?!?

The evidence isn't going to show anything I haven't already told you. I was shooting my gun in the air while I was drunk.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:03 pm 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.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:08 pm You have to remember: the people of the Free Zone are natural rights minarchists. By definition they take self-responsibility seriously. The question did he kill -- with car, with bullet -- is answered based on your willingness, your knowledge, your cause

Precisely! I didn't know my bullets are going to hit anyone, nor did I want to kill anyone.
99.99% of the bullets I shoot up in the air never killed anyone. It was just that one.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 3:03 pm I reckon you'd be found guilty of killing and penalized (which is better than murder and possibly a death sentence)

Of what crime?!?

I didn't kill anyone either willingly or knowingly.

Of what crime?!?

killing

You said I can only be deprived of my liberty of I knowingly and willingly deprived another of life.

you left out, quite intentionally, just cause

you may have killed without intent or unknowingly, but you also killed without just cause

I didn't mean to kill him; I didn't want to kill him; I didn't even know I'd killed him

okay, but did you have cause to kill him?

no

then you're responsible

and what about property damage?

you put quite a few rounds into the air

fallin' bullets might cause damage to homes, etc.

you didn't mean to, you didn't want to, you didn't know you had

and you had no cause to

natural rights libertarian minarchies: not all fun and games and dog fuckin' and crank-makin'

self-direction and self-responsibility

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:48 pm killing

That's not a crime. It can't be a crime.

Unless you are telling me you also imprison folks who kill in self-defence.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:48 pm you left out, quite intentionally, just cause
you may have killed without intent or unknowingly, but you also killed without just cause

What, hold it there cowboy. It's not on me to prove my innocence. It's on you to prove my guilt.

What sort of causes do you deem "just" vs "unjust". You don't even have a legal system.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:48 pm okay, but did you have cause to kill him?

no

then you're responsible

So now you are going to start throwing people in jail for accidentally killing pedestrians or other road users?!?

You understand that mens rea is a vital component of most criminal systems today, right?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:48 pm and what about property damage?

you put quite a few rounds into the air

fallin' bullets might cause damage to homes, etc.

Yeah? So prove they are my bullets. Everybody does it!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Dec 20, 2021 11:48 pm self-direction and self-responsibility

Yeah. So you are responsible for yourself. Why is your death my problem?

Wear a helmet.

If I'm wrong, some sort of demonstration of fact would resolve that.

I don't believe there's any demonstration of fact that would move you or vice versa.

Sure. I guess there's a lowest common denominator.

the only unadulterable commonality

Those work up until the moment anything remotely contentious crops up though, and they turn out not be sufficient.

they only need to get us to agree not to violate one another if we have no other common ground

no basis for new knowledge

it's not meant to be

Unless you are telling me you also imprison folks who kill in self-defence.

Defense of self, other, and property is justified. Someone dyin' cuz you had to throw lead into the air is not. You can do it, sure, but you're responsible for the consequence. And, as I just mentioned to flash in the other thread on another matter, such behavior, even without a loss of life, liberty, or property, could get you shunned.

It's on you to prove my guilt.

Yes, of course. And in your particular circumstance, I don't think it would be difficult to prove you killed someone without just cause.

What sort of causes do you deem "just" vs "unjust".

As I say: defense of self, other, and property are just causes. Unjust causes might be hurt feelings, or distaste. Usin' chicken Joe from the other thread: you may hate his guts for bein' a chicken-lover, but that's not just cause to off him. Feel free, however, to ostracize him.

You don't even have a legal system.

A rough & ready one, yeah, we do. You and flash are helpin' me refine it.



So now you are going to start throwing people in jail for accidentally killing pedestrians or other road users?!?

This is about application of the 3. You, followin' the recommended speed rating for a road on a sunny clear day, hit a fella who just walks out in front of you at the last second, aren't, to my mind, responsible. You, goin' twice the recommended, at night, in the fog, hit a fella, to my mind, just may be responsible. Again: this isn't about the 3 itself but about an application of the 3.

mens rea

Yes, I'm familiar. Intent. That's part of line 3. The absence of intent, however, can't absolve every unintended violstion.

Willingness, knowledge, just cause. You kill with the first two and without the third: you murder. You kill without all three: you kill. You kill with all three: it'll be in defense.

(aside, to flash: with skep's help I believe I have a handle on precedent in the Free Zone...look for a post on it in the other thread)

So prove they are my bullets.

The attempt will be made, just as it is today in current legal systems.

Everybody does it!

Unlikely. As I say: these Free Zoners are natural rightists. They take self-direction and self-responsibility seriously. And in the seasoned minarchy I'm describin', pumpin' lead into to the air isn't immoral or illegal, but it's frowned on. You may not ever kill anyone or damage any property, but you might also not be associated with.

Why is your death my problem?

If you kill me without just cause: it's your problem.

Wear a helmet.

I might (at least till you starve from no one transacting with you).

I was shooting my gun in the air while I was drunk.

Yep. And one of those rounds perforated someone who hadn't deprived you of life liberty or property. You didn't know you killed, didn't want to kill, but you did, without just cause. You didn't murder, you killed (if you like we can adopt manslaughter as the term instead of killing which might be confusing).

So, let's review...

Murder is killing with willingness and knowledge, and without just cause.

Manslaughter is killing without willingness, without knowledge, and without just cause.

Defense (of self, other, or property) is killing with knowledge and just cause.

I didn't kill anyone either willingly or knowingly.

And you had no just cause either. Hell, you didn't even have unjust cause. Someone died cuz you were irresponsible. Manslaughter.

Christmas week: time in-forum will be limited by work, shoppin', bein' with my out-of-school-for-the-holidays kid, and tryin' to get beer virus while attendin' various enjoyable family & friends get-togethers. Be kind: please, I don't wanna come back to the thread with ten pages of comments, criticisms, etc. I'll never catch up. May I suggest a year's end hiatus with festivities to resume January 2nd, '22?

Anyway: I'll poke in as I can.

Merry Christmas, folks.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:01 am Sure. I guess there's a lowest common denominator.

the only unadulterable commonality

That doesn't seem very likely. Everybody also agrees that hypocrisy is wrong. Everybody agrees that pain is bad and pleasure is good. I never heard anyone actually disagree with the do unto others thing, probably because everyone already agrees that hypocrisy is wrong.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:01 am Those work up until the moment anything remotely contentious crops up though, and they turn out not be sufficient.

they only need to get us to agree not to violate one another if we have no other common ground

Uhm, isn't this thing supposed to tell us who is right? Moral realism being in the thread title and all?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:01 am no basis for new knowledge

it's not meant to be

Is this thing not supposed to unpack in some way?

Everybody also agrees that hypocrisy is wrong. Everybody agrees that pain is bad and pleasure is good. I never heard anyone actually disagree with the do unto others thing, probably because everyone already agrees that hypocrisy is wrong.

Hypocrisy, pain and pleasure, the golden rule: all these, and other commonalities, are interpretable.

A man belongs to himself: you can ignore it, violate it, but you can't interpret it away. You acknowledge this about yourself and others or you pretend it doesn't exist, but you can't logically interpret it and have it stand.

isn't this thing supposed to tell us who is right? Moral realism being in the thread title and all?

It tells you what is and isn't permissible between and among men based on each man bein' his own. It's not meant to settle a dispute over, say, is pizza better than burgers. It's meant, based on that universal intuition of ownness to set a boundary, as in is it permissible for Lou to cave Stan's skull in cuz Stan sez pizza is superior and Lou vehemently disagrees?

Seems to me it qualifies as a moral realism as it's based on a reality man knows about himself and other men and proscribes -- again -- what is and isn't permissible between and among men based on that known reality.

Is this thing not supposed to unpack in some way?

Seems to me, after doin' that, the 3 lines are fairly open and unambiguous. The one area that cries for unpackin' is the one you seem reluctant to tackle: what is a person?

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:18 pm Everybody also agrees that hypocrisy is wrong. Everybody agrees that pain is bad and pleasure is good. I never heard anyone actually disagree with the do unto others thing, probably because everyone already agrees that hypocrisy is wrong.

Hypocrisy, pain and pleasure, the golden rule: all these, and other commonalities, are interpretable.

A man belongs to himself: you can ignore it, violate it, but you can't interpret it away. You acknowledge this about yourself and others or you pretend it doesn't exist, but you can't logically interpret it and have it stand.

But you are trying to change the conversation to the question of what is a person, so .... interpretable.

The few moral judgments you seem to be happy to make largely revovle around whether something is property and whether to recognise some property right so that's just as interpretable as hypocrisy is and honestly more so than pain.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:18 pm isn't this thing supposed to tell us who is right? Moral realism being in the thread title and all?

It tells you what is and isn't permissible between and among men based on each man bein' his own. It's not meant to settle a dispute over, say, is pizza better than burgers. It's meant, based on that universal intuition of ownness to set a boundary, as in is it permissible for Lou to cave Stan's skull in cuz Stan sez pizza is superior and Lou vehemently disagrees?

I'm still trying to find anything at all in your 3 lines that amounts to anything more than reciprocal property rights, it's got nothig more than you keep your hands out of my pockets and I keep mine out of yours. you tell me this can be unpacked to amount to more than that, when does this occur? So far, on the subject of answering controversies, you've managed nothing but don't touch anyone's stuff just because you don't agree with them, which protects property and person, but does nothing to unpack into the correction of any moral error.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:18 pm Seems to me it qualifies as a moral realism as it's based on a reality man knows about himself and other men and proscribes -- again -- what is and isn't permissible between and among men based on that known reality.

That's not moral realism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

henry quirk wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 8:18 pm Is this thing not supposed to unpack in some way?

Seems to me, after doin' that, the 3 lines are fairly open and unambiguous. The one area that cries for unpackin' is the one you seem reluctant to tackle: what is a person?

There's no reason for two persons to conclude the same thing. We already covered that with the abortion case where the non religious who don't believe on souls will not arrive at the same conclusion that you do. As there is no reason given why we have to even apply moral ough only in cases of what a person does to another person it seems pointless to divert into navel gazing about personhood anyway.