Philosophy Now Forum

Here's sumthin' you got right...

Morally, no one may interfere in the life of any other individual, not as a threat to their life, their liberty, their property, or anything else. This is not some kind of obligation or duty imposed by some external force or agency, it is a principle based on the requirements of every individual's nature

It mirrors my own thinkin', is the basis for my own rough & ready natural-rights libertarianism, is the foundation of 'mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else'.

I'm a bit mystfied, then, that you'd turn a blind eye to an innocent gettin' offed cuz I can't.

#

A_uk

My view has shifted with age & consideration & experience. I'm not inclined to 'stand by' any more.

That okay with you?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 5:13 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 5:09 pm ...it is none of anyone else's business how someone else lives their life.

Only if they live as a total hermit. The minute you have two people, you have society, ethical issues, and mutual responsibilities that need to be defined. Absent that, you can't have society at all.

I do not know what problems you have dealing with others, but a moral individual has no problem dealing with others in a society, because the moral individual has no interest in others except as they can interact to their mutual benefit. To the moral individual no one else is born with some kind of unearned obligation to others; their only obligation is to live their life as reality demands and to be the best, productive, harmless individuals they can be, not for the sake of society, but for the sake of their own success and happiness. Moral individuals have none of the kind of social problems you envision because they deal with others to their mutual benefit as each individual chooses.

The kind of society you envision is a society of immoral individuals.

If they are not directly threatening you, it is wrong to interfere in someone else's life.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 5:13 pm You mean that you can't intervene in the interests of the innocent?

Of course you can come to the aid of other adults if you are certain they invite your help and know what you do is really help. You cannot be a busybody that does people unasked favors and expect gratitude. You cannot interfere in how others raise their children or in the lives of those children. That would be immoral.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 5:13 pm In fact, if you saw somebody killing somebody else, I hope you'd try to intervene somehow....

I bet you would, without even knowing what the situation was. I bet you would try to prevent someone killing someone who was in the process of killing his family and raping his daughters. Would you be proud of that?

I know that is an exceptional case, but so is yours. How many times, if any, will most people run across someone trying to kill someone? Almost never. What your saying totally misses my point that it is wrong to interfere in how others live their lives. It might be appropriate to be involved in some exceptional case, like a person dying or in extreme danger, but those things can hardly be described as, "how they live their lives," can they.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:29 pm My point is, post abortion, it (fetus, child, whatever you want to call it) no longer exists. It is dead.

Why make this "your point," if nobody doubts it?

So this is about government policy. If that is the case, none of this matters because nothing the government does ever improves anything.

Ah. So you stay off paved roads, do you? And you don't want sanitation or public education? No national policy on immigration or security? No police force? No judiciary?

I'm opposed to big government. But government has a few legitimate roles...with checks and balances in place. A necessary evil? Maybe, but necessary nonetheless.

I have very high ethical standards

If they're "high," then they must fit on a scale. To which scale of ethics do you refer?

It is unethical to make others adopt or conform to my ethical views,

Is it unethical, in your view, for me to say otherwise? Because if it is, you're expecting me to "adopt or conform" to that ethical precept you just asserted...which means you just would have violated your own precept, it would seem.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:08 pm ...a moral individual has no problem dealing with others in a society,

Sure he does. Because as you yourself have said, people have different morals.

Without an agreement as to what is to be practiced by members of a society, you would have nothing but constant conflict. Social rules are there to make social interaction pleasant, smooth and agreeable to all, so much as can be achieved. And social rules -- even merely provisional arrangements of common procedure, like "Don't wake your neighbours" -- require agreements.

The kind of society you envision is a society of immoral individuals.

Au contraire: only in a society does morality become an issue at all. For hermits, it has no meaning.

Of course you can come to the aid of other adults

But not children? Surely you don't despise children.

If your neighbour was molesting his daughter, would you report him? Or would you say, "It's his lifestyle, and she's just a child..."?

How many times, if any, will most people run across someone trying to kill someone?

Every time there's an abortion: about 125,000 a day. That's just a starter. I haven't included any other kinds of killing. And while some people may say, "Abortion's not murder," nobody doubts that abortion IS a "killing."

In fact, that's its whole point, isn't it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:25 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:29 pm My point is, post abortion, it (fetus, child, whatever you want to call it) no longer exists. It is dead.

Why make this "your point," if nobody doubts it?

You apparently didn't understand it or you wouldn't have asked about it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:25 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:29 pm So this is about government policy. If that is the case, none of this matters because nothing the government does ever improves anything.

Ah. So you stay off paved roads, do you? And you don't want sanitation or public education? No national policy on immigration or security? No police force? No judiciary?

You really believe government makes paved roads? I know governments take credit for roads built by engineers paid for by money stolen by the government from others, but government doesn't produce anything accept oppressive laws, destructive policies, and wars. You are right I do not want government sanitation, and definitely not public education. I despise continuous wars and oppression (national policy on immigration and security). I have no use for so-called law enforcement and nothing could be more corrupt than American courts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:25 pm I'm opposed to big government. But government has a few legitimate roles...with checks and balances in place. A necessary evil? Maybe, but necessary nonetheless.

Necessary for what?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:25 pm

I have very high ethical standards

If they're "high," then they must fit on a scale. To which scale of ethics do you refer?

Did they not teach rhetoric when you went to school? "High," is rhetorical for rigorous, strict, or extreme. Any superlative can replace it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:25 pm

It is unethical to make others adopt or conform to my ethical views,

Is it unethical, in your view, for me to say otherwise? Because if it is, you're expecting me to "adopt or conform" to that ethical precept you just asserted...which means you just would have violated your own precept, it would seem.

Actually I have no expectations of you whatsoever. I'd like to see you adopt my views because you would be happier, but I do not expect it and would not strive for it.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:35 pm If I stumble on Jane gettin' her keister beat down in a nasty way, am I forcin' my view on folks if I step in a put an end to the assault, or am I defendin' an innocent?

Joe, for whatever cockeyed reason, decides to step into a first grade classroom with a baseball bat and practice his swing on the heads of whoever he finds there. Am I forcin' my views on folks if I step in and stop Joe, or am I defendin' the innocent?

In each case you must do what you know is right. Certainly you aren't saying you want a law to force someone defend Jane or Joe, are you? Of course you'll defend a Jane or Joe, if you can, but it would be wrong to force someone to defend Jane or Joe.

In context: the question 'person or meat?' is all that matters.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 6:35 pm If meat: the pregnant woman can do as she likes.

If person: the pregnant woman ought live with the narrow, temporary, oh-so awful restriction of not bein' able to, with impunity, off the unborn person inside her body.

It still doesn't matter.

Now if you think an abortion is murder, as so many do, and are compelled by your convictions to prevent that murder, and are willing to personally intervene in the murder the way one would to defend Jane or Joe, that is your decision.

If that is what you truly believe is right, than have the courage of you conviction and personally prevent the abortion if you can. But if you do believe that and instead of putting yourself where you mouth is, you hire someone else to do your dirty work for you (some government agency) you are simply a hypocrite attempting to glean virtue from the action of others.

I used to be like you.

I didn't call myself 'individualist'. Instead: I called myself 'anarchist', but it amounted to the same.

Thank Crom: I wised up.

The proxy of the night-watchman isn't currently for me (or you, or any other capable person). No, the minarchist proxy is to preserve the life, liberty, property of those who are incapable (mainly the invalid old and helpless young) who have no one like you or me to stand for them. There is no virtue in the night-watchman and no virtue for those, like me, who'd employ that proxy.

It's a simple matter of neccessity. It's simple matter of aknowledging that many, mebbe even most, aren't as capable as we are.

So: I work in that direction; to limit and minimize that which is practically unlimited and maximized. And I work, in my own screwy way, to get folks to self-direct, to be self-responsible, to self-rely.

If that makes me a hypocrite: so be it.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 8:21 pm You really believe government makes paved roads?

It does where I live. I can't speak for your neighbourhood.

Necessary for what?

Well, somewhere we need to encode our social agreements. That's true for everything from "No spitting on the sidewalk" to "Thou shalt not murder." And then somebody's got to monitor and enforce those agreements, because people will violate them.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:25 pm

I have very high ethical standards

If they're "high," then they must fit on a scale. To which scale of ethics do you refer?

Did they not teach rhetoric when you went to school?

Oh, you won't want to go there on that one. Trust me. (I could point out that "high" is only a qualifier, but "highest" is the superlative...but that would be pedantic, so I won't do that.)

Superlatives go at the top of some hierarchical chain of values: "low," "higher," "highest." And that chain of values must be identified before being "high" or "highest" makes any sense. To be a "higher" humanitarian might, arguably, be good; but I doubt the same could be said of a "higher" treason. So the qualifier doesn't contain the essential content: the noun to which it refers does.

"High," is rhetorical for rigorous, strict, or extreme. Any superlative can replace it.

But it's only an adjective, and you haven't specified the noun to which it refers, and which it modifies. What ethical chain of values, what ethical imperatives, do you refer to when you call your ethics "high"? You don't say. And maybe that means a) you don't actually know, in which case they may not be "high" at all, or b) you don't want to say, though I can't imagine why anybody would be ashamed of an ethical code they think is "high" at the end where they personally practice it.

But for certain, if your ethics are "high," then they are on a particular scale. All I'm asking is that you identify your own chosen chain of values.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:25 pm

It is unethical to make others adopt or conform to my ethical views,

Is it unethical, in your view, for me to say otherwise? Because if it is, you're expecting me to "adopt or conform" to that ethical precept you just asserted...which means you just would have violated your own precept, it would seem.

Actually I have no expectations of you whatsoever. I'd like to see you adopt my views because you would be happier, but I do not expect it and would not strive for it.

Then why argue for what you have no expectation I ought (or "owe it") to believe? Yet here you are...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:33 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 09, 2019 7:08 pm ...a moral individual has no problem dealing with others in a society,

Sure he does. Because as you yourself have said, people have different morals.

It is apparent that you do not understand what ethical principles are. I'm not accusing you of anything, or judging you, because all you have said is what is today the popular view of morality being promoted for the last fifty years, or more. It's about the same as most people, at least most academics, believe.

Since, at present, you and I do not agree even on the fundamentals of ethics, no discussion involving them is going to be the least bit fruitful.

I'm not cutting off communication, just being realistic about what to expect. If you are interested in what ethical principles are see the article, "Principles".

It doesn't matter if you agree with the article or not. If you disagree, you might tell say you think ethical principles are.

From RCSunders link. I finally understand the significance of ethics.

Every individual not only can, but must consciously choose everything he thinks and does. [In this case "must" means one has no choice in the matter.] Any attempt to evade the fact everything one does is by choice, such as blaming feelings, desires, impulses, genetics, society, one's boss or "superiors," policy, duty, ill health, moods, or anything else, is unethical.

I consciously choose to shoot da bastard.

Every individual has their own mind and is responsible for everything they think, choose, and do. Any attempt to evade that responsibility is unethical.
Sound good. After due consideration the best alternative is to shoot da bastard.
Every individual has the ability to learn all they need to learn to be all they can possibly be as a human being, and they must learn all they possibly can about as many things as they possibly can and they must do this as long as they live. Not learning all one possibly can is unethical.

Very true. One must learn all the reasons why it is necessary to shoot da bastard.

Every individual has the ability to think and reason well enough to make right choices about everything they do. Every individual must use their ability to reason about everything they believe, think, choose, and do; which means, they must never accept a contradiction, never surrender their reason to feelings, whims, desires, passions, or fears, and never just accept anything as true they do not themselves understand how and why it is true. Failing or evading to think as well as one possibly can about all things is unethical.

Never doubt. If the person needs killing just go ahead and shoot da bastard.

Every individual must use all their ability and effort to be and accomplish all they possibly can as a human being. Anything less is not only immoral but a failure to live the life that is possible, which will, at best, lead only to a life of regret and disappointment, but, more likely, to a life that ends in grief or despair. To do less than one's best in all things is unethical.

It is always the bastards who prevent us from accomplishing what we can. That is why ethics demand we shoot da bastard.

Reality does not supply human beings with the requirements of their life—neither food, clothing, shelter, medicine, or knowledge; these must all be produced by human beings. No one is born with a claim to any of these things and no one may morally seek what one has not produced, earned, or merited by ones own effort: not wealth, not goods, not services, not pleasure, not position, and not reputation. So long as ones wealth is produced by ones own effort, it may be traded for anything anyone else has produced. Acquiring or seeking anything by any means other than producing it, earning it, or buying it, is unethical.

Yes there are those who attempt to take advantage of us which is why the ethical alternative is to shoot da bastard.

Freedom is a moral requirement for all individuals. Every individual must seek to be as free as possible, free to use their minds to think whatever they choose, free to make any choices they judge to be right, and free to work and produce in any way they choose. Failing to seek to be free, or seeking freedom by any means other than earning it by one's own effort is unethical.

Part of being free is freedom from undesirable individuals. Another reason to just shoot da bastards as the ethical alternative.

The only moral relationship between individuals is reason. Individuals may morally deal with one another by means of reason to their mutual benefit, socially, financially, in business or any other cooperative efforts, or any other way they mutually choose. All other relationships are unethical.

Quite true. We must restrict ourselves to reason which prevents any doubt as to why the only ethical alternative is to shoot da bastard.

Every individual is different from every other individual. No individual can know what is right or good for any other individual. Any attempt to interfere in the life of any other individual to influence his thoughts or choices, by any means except reason, is unethical.

The attempt to interfere with thoughts just gets in the way of fixing the problem which comes from the freedom to shoot d bastard.

It is immoral to allow another individual to interfere in one's own life by any means. Rational discourse is not interference—everything else is. It is morally necessary to protect oneself, and ones property from such interference, by the most rational and economic method possible, including force to any degree when no other method is possible.

The best means to protect ourselves from higher influences and common sense is to just shoot da bastard before matters become too confusing. Shoot first and ask questions later. The ethical solution

Nick's comments got me to thinkin' about this...

the minarchist proxy is to preserve the life, liberty, property of those who are incapable (mainly the invalid old and helpless young) who have no one like you or me to stand for them.

...which I posted above.

It occurs to me I could phrased it this way...

the minarchist proxy is to preserve the life, liberty, property of those who are incapable (mainly the invalid old and helpless young) of defending themselves from folks like you and me

In my experience: those most concerned with the issues tackled in-thread are those with the propensity to be utter bastids

The timid, the weak, the domesticated aren't the ones who need principles. It's the folks like you and me (and presumably Nick and Mannie) who need to 'self-govern' (or, self-hobble [if we're gonna be honest about it]).

Sumthin' croppin' up in your writings & posts is the notion that folks would be 'happier' if they adhered to the principles you outline.

Seems to me: principles aren't about what makes me 'feel better' but about 'doin' right'.

I know, as fact, I'd be a helluva lot more 'happy' if certain folks died (even more 'happy' if they died in awful, painful, slow ways).

But: I've determined it wouldn't be 'right' for me to off these folks (I hold out some little hope someone less self-regulated than me 'will' do the world a favor some day).

In short: principles, 'doin' right', is usually the cause of discomfort, not happiness (an overrated idea).

There's a lot to be desired in your whole, as Mannie puts it, 'moral scheme'.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 12:58 am I'm not cutting off communication, just being realistic about what to expect. If you are interested in what ethical principles are see the article, "Principles".

Okay, so this article is your own summary of what you suppose "principles" to be. I see.

I do disagree, on nearly every point, actually. But we've already touched on a couple of obvious ones, like the idea that "morality" can be an individual rather than a social issue. Another would be the failure to distinguish between "ethical" and "pragmatic" modes of thinking. A third would be the justification of moral language -- one has none, if "moral" only concerns the individual: for what does it mean to say, "RC is a highly moral person," when only RC's opinion is allowed to count for that? All it would imply is, "RC approves of what RC does." But no one else has to.

Another concern is quite practical. Your view won't permit society, because societies are only founded by agreement, and your theory denies that agreement has any moral significance. So your view will only permit unremitting power games and conflict. It will give you no grounds at all for either praise or blame, despite the fact that it so often invokes moral language, because moral language must be justified by the worldview on which it's premised.

I laud your effort at encoding your thoughts about morality. But, if you'll permit me to be so bold, I think they could benefit greatly by being exposed to people who would critique them for you. You might find there are things you want to patch up about them.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Mon Jun 10, 2019 3:39 am In short: principles, 'doin' right', is usually the cause of discomfort, not happiness (an overrated idea).

This, I think, is quite a profound insight.

"Happiness" is not, after all, a moral or immoral quality. Rather, it's an emotion that attends some events, and fails to attend others, regardless of their moral value.

Correcting one's child doesn't make one happy...but it does make him grow up well. On the other hand, getting free money makes many people happy, but then corrupts them morally. In other words, "happiness" and "good" are not connected values. In fact, "happiness" isn't even a value at all; it's an emotion.

This is why when Aristotle spoke of "happiness" he used the word eudaemonia, meaning "blessedness" or even "approval by the gods" as his term. He asked not what would make life "happy," (for that would be frivolous), but rather, what would make it significant and valuable when viewed from an eternal perspective. "Happy" people may not be good, and good people may not be "happy."