Philosophy Now Forum

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:11 am And the EXACT SAME...

Not bothering, Age.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:43 am

Age wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:11 am And the EXACT SAME...

Not bothering, Age.

Fair enough.

OBVIOUSLY, my CLAIMS here are ABSOLUTELY True, Right, AND Correct, and as such you can NOT counter them in ANY way AT ALL.

THANK YOU. Your INABILITY to counter PROVES my CLAIMS here to be True.

No one came along, until very recently to declare that rights existed. In fact that are a very new idea, and like most new ideas they are speculative and are not likley to last. The pressure of history shows that concepts and endemic assumptions fade and change with time.

Even the most rabid defender of rights as absolute qualities inherent possessions of the human, inalienable and iremovable by law, would pale at the next 100 years and what extra rights, abhorent to today would be taken as norms.

"Rights" are wishes. They are not properties that we inherently possesses, they can be legitimately taken away, by the same lawmakers that bestowed them in the first palce. These include what seem fundemental such as the right to life, to freedom of choice. History may take a different route, and what might seem like a luxury today could become the right of the future. You have only to look back 200 years when it was thought that a right to freedom (not just of choice, but basic liberty) was thought to expensive to allow. Abolitionism wished that this was not so, and the process of abolition of the rights of slavers to own people gradually diminished, to be replaced with the rights of liberty. There is nothing to say that this could go backwards in history, or forwards to a right to health or a right to communicate (where mobile phones would have to be supplied at cost by the state).

It matters not what any constitution says, because there are others that contradict such statements. The powerless UN might list right upon which each of us here would accept and agree - but make no mistake "RIGHT" is a word that has ZERO legal standing ourside the Lex Loci of each and every country willing to enforce such rights.
For example the Conservative Government in the UK has as part of its manifesto the rejection of the charter of European rights. And it has the power to move on that as it will.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:00 am So, for example, if your first two premises are:

All women are evil.

And all evil things should be killed.
What do I look at to see whether, "all women are evil," is true?

Out of context.

Out of what context. You provided those as examples of premises. I'm certain you did not mean they were true or correct premises, only that they were possible premises.

You said, "reason cannot tell you whether or not those premises are true," and when I asked you how you then could determine if such premises were true or not, your answer was: "This must be the tenth time I've said this: "empirically." Open your eyes, and see if reality conforms to what you believe." I hardly think asking you exactly what one looks at to, "see," whether the context conforms to reality is, "out of context."

I also do not understand how what you are calling, "empirical," is empirical by anyone's definition (except some private one of your own), which is why I said and asked: "You can just, 'see,' what you believe? What color, shape, or size is belief. What does a belief look like? It's nonsense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am ... Now, I know that it's morally reprehensible. But then, I'm a believer in moral objectivism. You're not, so far as I know.

Unless you've changed your mind since earlier discussions, you are not a moral objectivist, you are a moral, "intrinsicist." You believe what you call moral values are determined or dictated by some authority--that some things are just right or wrong, intrinsically, independent of purpose or consequence.

I do not use the mystical loaded word, "moral," because values are terms of relationship. Nothing is just good, bad, right, or wrong. Good, bad, right, and wrong only have meaning relative to some purpose, (end, goal, or objective), and only living conscious organisms have purposes, and what makes all purposes possible is the life of the individuals whose purposes they are. There are no other purposes and there is no other basis of values.

The ultimate purpose, and basis of all others, is the successful life of an individual human being as a human being, and what determines that success is the nature of the reality in which human beings live, and their own nature as volitional, intellectual, rational beings. My values are objective and based on the facts of reality. Your values are some kind of mystical nonsense based on what cannot possibly be demonstrated.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am Oh, I see. You think that nobody can be entitled to anything they haven't "earned" or "provided for themselves by their own efforts." Is that what you meant?

Well, in that case, it's no surprise you don't believe in rights: they're intrinsic.

Thanks for proving my point.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am Your life is given to you by God; ..."

I'm with Topsy on that, and that poor ignorant little slave girl had more wisdom than all the theologians that ever lived:

"Have you ever heard about God, Topsy?" asked Miss Ophelia, but the child had no answer. She didn't know what the good lady meant.

"Do you know who made you?"

"Nobody as I know on," replied the child, "I 'spect I jest growed."

Topsy was right because she had not yet had anyone trying to warp her little mind with superstitious nonsense.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am So you have no rights, in your view.

My, my, you finally got it. You don't have any either, by the way.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:43 pm I hardly think asking you exactly what one looks at to, "see," whether the context conforms to reality is, "out of context."

If that's what you were asking, then the answer is, "reality" or "the world," if you prefer.

You can just, 'see,' what you believe?

I never said that. I said that you can only form your first premises empirically. You've misunderstood, somehow.

What color, shape, or size is belief. What does a belief look like?

Do you believe I should take your question seriously? If you do, you know what having a belief feels like.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am You believe what you call moral values are determined or dictated by some authority--that some things are just right or wrong, intrinsically, independent of purpose or consequence.

I'm not sure what the phrase "independent of purpose or consequence" means, since you haven't said who is doing the "purposing" in your sentence. So I'm not sure how to respond to this suggestion.

I do not use the mystical loaded word, "moral,"

Right. So you can't even ask if killing women is "moral," because the term has no referent, in your world.

The ultimate purpose, and basis of all others, is the successful life of an individual human being as a human being, and what determines that success is the nature of the reality in which human beings live, and their own nature as volitional, intellectual, rational beings.

Show how that rationalizes with your worldview. In your worldview, there is no inherent purpose to creation. Contingent beings, called "humans," just happen to sometimes imagine things or purpose things in their heads. And you think some of these phenomena inside the heads of these contingent beings are special -- you anoint them with terms like "volitional," "rational," "intellectual," and so on -- justify that.

Explain why some of the in-head phenomena exhibited by the late-ape called "man" are special, and why we are bound to give them any regard.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am Your life is given to you by God; ..."

I'm with Topsy on that

Yes, I know "Topsy."

Well, this much you know for sure: you didn't cause yourself to live. So you didn't "earn" your life, and you didn't "provide it for yourself." So even if you deny there's a God, then life is not one of the things you think a being can be owed. There is no "right to life," in your world. There is also no "right to liberty," and no "right to property" -- meaning no right to keep what you think you "earned" or "provided for yourself."

Fine with that?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:13 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:43 pm I hardly think asking you exactly what one looks at to, "see," whether the context conforms to reality is, "out of context."

If that's what you were asking, then the answer is, "reality" or "the world," if you prefer.

You can just, 'see,' what you believe?

I never said that. I said that you can only form your first premises empirically. You've misunderstood, somehow.

Somebody said, "Open your eyes, and see if reality conforms to what you believe." Whoever said that never explained how one, "forms," a premise (which just happens to be a proposition, that is, a rational statement), without using reason.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am You believe what you call moral values are determined or dictated by some authority--that some things are just right or wrong, intrinsically, independent of purpose or consequence.

I do not use the mystical loaded word, "moral,"

Right. So you can't even ask if killing women is "moral," because the term has no referent, in your world.

It hasn't any referent in any world.

If you cannot figure out why it would be wrong for you to kill a woman (other than to defend yourself against one trying to kill you) without resorting so some mystical notion of intrinsic value, I'd say you have a problem.

It is wrong for a human being who chooses to live successfully in this world to do anything that is self-destructive to one's own being, physiologically or psychologically. Once an individual understands their life depends solely on what they choose to think and do and understands they are responsible for every aspect of their own life, that to fully enjoy that life one must be the best human being the can be, fully competent to live their own live, free from all dependency on others, one cannot ever desire, much less act, to harm another human being.

A rational individual knows the only relationship with other rational beings that is a value to oneself are those which are benevolent to every individual in that relationship, that anything gained at another's expense, makes them less than human, a parasite, incompetent to live life successfully by his own action (a devastating psychological realization one cannot evade), it means... but what's the point of trying to explain virtue to someone who believes its some mystical thing provided by some supernatural being and not what one must achieve and acquire by their own integrity.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am

The ultimate purpose, and basis of all others, is the successful life of an individual human being as a human being, and what determines that success is the nature of the reality in which human beings live, and their own nature as volitional, intellectual, rational beings.

Show how ...

Show to whom. The only way to explain objective values is by means of reason. Since you do not regard reason as the only means to knowledge, no explanation is possible to you. You are just not interested, which you don't have to be, of course.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am Explain why some of the in-head phenomena exhibited by the late-ape called "man" are special, and why we are bound to give them any regard.

You really do have a bad memory. I have no idea how many times I've told you I do not accept the evolutionary hypothesis. Your, "late-ape," reference is totally specious and insulting. As my grandmother sometimes remarked to such comments, "I can see why you believe you forbears were monkeys, mine weren't."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am Your life is given to you by God; ..."

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 2:43 pm I'm with Topsy on that

Yes, I know "Topsy."
Well, this much you know for sure: you didn't cause yourself to live. So you didn't "earn" your life, and you didn't "provide it for yourself."

Well no living organism provides themselves with a, "beginning," which is nothing more than a demarcation point dividing a life process as existing in one entity and continuing in another, but every organism only remains alive by its own living behavior that sustains that life. Even a newborn will only live if it performs all it's biological functions (ingesting and digesting food and breathing) correctly. If it fails in any of those, because of any physiological defects, it will die. It is always an individual's behavior that sustains its own life, even before it is able to make conscious choices. The only thing that changes is, that for human beings, all their behavior must eventually be consciously chosen. It is at that point the individual becomes totally responsible for their existence and must base all their choices on the principles of reality that determine how a human must live to live successfully.

The principle is the same for all life. Every organism has a specific nature that determines what that organism must do to stay alive and live successfully as the kind or organism it is. The only difference between all other organisms and human beings is that all other organism's nature provides them a pre-programmed pattern of behavior (called instinct) that ensures that right behavior but human beings have no pre-determined pattern of behavior, and must discover what their nature requires and what kind of behavior will fulfill the requirements of that nature in order for them to live successfully as the kind or organisms they are.

For all life it is the same--work or die. Work is whatever an organism must do to provide itself with all that it's nature requires for it to live.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am So even if you deny there's a God, ...

So, you don't know Topsy after all. She never denied God, and neither do I. Like 'Topsy," I just have no idea what you are talking about.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am There is also no "right to liberty," and no "right to property" -- meaning no right to keep what you think you "earned" or "provided for yourself."

Fine with that?

Absolutley. If I want liberty, property, and to keep what I have earned and provided my self, I must earn or produce the property, provide my own liberty, and provide my own means of preserving and protecting my property and wealth. I couldn't even wish for it to be any other way.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 13, 2021 10:29 pm What are some basic human rights that we can all agree to?

For example, can we all agree that anyone accused of a crime should receive a fair trial?

If not, what would be some problems with the above right whereby it should not be a basic human right?

What other rights can we pretty much all agree to?

What about a right that, no one should be denied a fair means of providing basic necessities for themselves or their dependent loved ones, in order to live. Or perhaps a right to fair compensation for one's labor?

What rights do you think can be made basic to everyone?

you only have one Right - to be alive - right now - in the future a tree or stroke or whatever will remove it in the future. you have the right to defend yourself from others and things that threaten your life - noting more.

Liberty, etc....... are rights from culture, a good culture will affimr those privags (they are not rights - i don't have a right to be fre - only alive). bad cultures will deny these privalages.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 9:39 pm ...never explained how one, "forms," a premise (which just happens to be a proposition, that is, a rational statement), without using reason..."

Again, it depends what you mean by "reason." If you just mean "mind," then of course you use your mind to form a belief. But you don't form it as a result of any sort of formal reasoning, but by induction, by empirical observation.

Or again, don't you believe in science?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am You believe what you call moral values are determined or dictated by some authority--that some things are just right or wrong, intrinsically, independent of purpose or consequence.

I do not use the mystical loaded word, "moral,"

Right. So you can't even ask if killing women is "moral," because the term has no referent, in your world.

It hasn't any referent in any world.

That's the contested point. I think it does, in this world, and you think it doesn't. One of us is right.

If you cannot figure out why it would be wrong for you to kill a woman (other than to defend yourself against one trying to kill you) without resorting so some mystical notion of intrinsic value, I'd say you have a problem.

I have no problem figuring it out. I'm a moral objectivist. But I can't see what obliges you to figure out it's wrong. You don't even believe such a thing as moral "wrongness" even exists.

It is wrong for a human being who chooses to live successfully in this world to do anything that is self-destructive to one's own being, physiologically or psychologically.

It's not clear at all what this means. It might well be in your interest to commit a murder, or at least a theft, and it's not at all transparent how either would be "self-destructive to one's own being," at least in the world as you describe it.

...one must be the best human being the can be...

Now you're surreptitiously smuggling in your personal moral preferences under the term "best," and hoping it doesn't get noticed. But your "bestness" needs justification. You can't take for granted that everybody automatically is duty bound to share your evaluations. You need to show some reason why you're right.

...those which are benevolent to every individual in that relationship...

Same problem: by no means obvious, and needs justifying.

...anything gained at another's expense, makes them less than human, a parasite, incompetent to live life successfully by his own action...

Same problem. Lots of people think that''s not true, and they often take things at others' expense. Socialism's premised on it, in fact: how do you prove you're right, and they're wrong?

...one must achieve and acquire by their own integrity.

Now your concept of "integrity" needs justification.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am

The ultimate purpose, and basis of all others, is the successful life of an individual human being as a human being, and what determines that success is the nature of the reality in which human beings live, and their own nature as volitional, intellectual, rational beings.

Show how ...

Show to whom.

To the satisfaction of a rational skeptic.

The only way to explain objective values is by means of reason.

Show exactly how that's done. Show how reason compels some objective value. I'd like to see that.

As my grandmother sometimes remarked to such comments, "I can see why you believe you forbears were monkeys, mine weren't."

Let's go with granny, then: from where did your ancestors come? And don't say, "Dorset." Say what about their origin makes them better than late monkeys.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am Well, this much you know for sure: you didn't cause yourself to live. So you didn't "earn" your life, and you didn't "provide it for yourself."

Well no living organism provides themselves with a, "beginning,"

Quite so. So "earning it" or "providing it for yourself" cannot be, in such cases, an explanation of how you got them or what they mean. They were the product of choice by another...not by you. And actually, everything you have is the same. You could not have guaranteed it to yourself; the universe qua universe owes you nothing.

Every organism has a specific nature that determines what that organism must do to stay alive and live successfully as the kind or organism it is.

Well, then, you'd best say what "kind of an organism" a human being is. What is its nature, purpose and telos? For how else will we detect if one is a "good" one or not?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am There is also no "right to liberty," and no "right to property" -- meaning no right to keep what you think you "earned" or "provided for yourself."

Fine with that?

Absolutley. If I want liberty, property, and to keep what I have earned and provided my self, I must earn or produce the property, provide my own liberty, and provide my own means of preserving and protecting my property and wealth. I couldn't even wish for it to be any other way.

I guess you'll find out how long that sort of "I am an island" attitude works. Old age, infirmity or tragedy will test us all on that, one way or another.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am Or again, don't you believe in science?

Science, yes, but I what you think is science is not science at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am

It is wrong for a human being who chooses to live successfully in this world to do anything that is self-destructive to one's own being, physiologically or psychologically.

It's not clear at all what this means.

You mean it's not clear to you. You can't imagine why doing something in violation of the requirements one's own nature is detrimental. It is too difficult for you to figure out, if my nature requires me to live by rationally directed conscious choice in order to perform and produce everything my life requires to live as a human being, defying that requirement, looking for shortcuts and evading the necessity of achieving my own life is harmful to my own mind and being. Then I can't help you.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am It might well be in your interest to commit a murder, or at least a theft, and it's not at all transparent how either would be "self-destructive to one's own being," at least in the world as you describe it.

Speak for yourself. It is not possible that any intentional harm done to another or any gain at the expense of another could be in my self interest.

What kind of person could even think it could be in their self interest to commit a murder?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am There is also no "right to liberty," and no "right to property" -- meaning no right to keep what you think you "earned" or "provided for yourself."

Fine with that?

Absolutely. If I want liberty, property, and to keep what I have earned and provided my self, I must earn or produce the property, provide my own liberty, and provide my own means of preserving and protecting my property and wealth. I couldn't even wish for it to be any other way.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am I guess you'll find out how long that sort of "I am an island" attitude works.

What are you talking about? Only individual's who are fully capable to supporting their own life and have no interest in interfering in anyone else's are capable of enjoying or deserve the society of others. The basis of all benevolent human relations is the positive value each can be to others. No one enjoys the society of others more than a free independent individual, and no one is of more value to others than free independent individuals who are never a threat or danger to others and seek nothing from others but what every individual chooses to share.

Any other kind of relationship requires the sacrifice of some individual's life and interests to some others in the name of, "duty," or, "obligation," or, "altruism."

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am Old age, infirmity or tragedy will test us all on that, one way or another.

If one lives successfully, the diminished capacity and potential handicaps of old age are inevitable. Because the rational individual's values are based on reality and are both short term and long term, he prepares as well as possible for all eventualities. There are no guarantees in life. There is always risk and danger, which are part of the adventure of life. If I fail to properly prepare for anything, I'll suffer the consequences of my choices--that's what real justice is.

I'll not have as many friends as I might have, if I had not lived so long [because so many of them have passed away], but those I do have I will enjoy until I have completed my life. One thing is certain, I will enjoy them because I do not regard my friends, or any other human beings, as obligated to pick up after me or take care of me, because I failed to provide for my own future.

If that is your idea of what friends are for, someone to take care of you or hold your hand when your own failures lead to your problems, I certainly wouldn't want you for a friend. I'm only interested in associating with others who find benefit in associating with me to our mutual enjoyment--no obligation and no duty.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:53 pm ...what you think is science is not science at all.

Sure it is.

Science is empirical and inductive. Those aren't even controversial claims, and it's anybody who doesn't know that who doesn't know science.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am

It is wrong for a human being who chooses to live successfully in this world to do anything that is self-destructive to one's own being, physiologically or psychologically.

It's not clear at all what this means.

You mean it's not clear to you.

No, I mean it's not clear to anybody except you. You may take for granted certain things are "self-destructive to one's own being," but I guarantee you that not all people think your set of so-called "self-destructive" practices are actually self-destructive.

So you need to justify your account of "self-destructiveness." And you're going to get doubt.

...my nature requires me to live by rationally directed conscious choice

Well, you think that 's what you're doing. But you're mistaken, because you manifest that you don't know anything about your own first premises. You actually seem to take for granted that something is "rational" on no other basis than that RC happens, for now, to believe in it.

I can't help you.

The reason for this is that your own values are not universal, objectively and rational, the way you're supposing they are; just like 99% of the world's people are not rationally-deficient, but rather many of them are simply reasoning from premises you don't share.

But since you appear to know or acknowledge any of your own first premises, what are the chances are you even going to see theirs, and then recognize them as rational beings? Not very great, obviously.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am It might well be in your interest to commit a murder, or at least a theft, and it's not at all transparent how either would be "self-destructive to one's own being," at least in the world as you describe it.

It is not possible that any intentional harm done to another or any gain at the expense of another could be in my self interest.

It is more than possible for you, though. Could it be in your self-interest to "borrow supplies" from work? Could it be in your self-interest to lie about your achievements, or to exaggerate your own rationality and insult others? Could it be in your self-interest to kill an intruder who had broken into your house and was attempting to rob or harm you? Could it be in your self-interest to shoot a terrorist who was trying to kill a bus load of children?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am There is also no "right to liberty," and no "right to property" -- meaning no right to keep what you think you "earned" or "provided for yourself."

Only individual's who are fully capable to supporting their own life and have no interest in interfering in anyone else's are capable of enjoying or deserve the society of others.

So dependent persons...the elderly, children, the needy, the mentally-ill, the handicapped...these are all "undeserving," in your view?

The basis of all benevolent human relations is the positive value each can be to others.

That implies that human worth isn't intrinsic, but depends on their usefulness to you.

Any despot believes that.

...the diminished capacity and potential handicaps of old age are inevitable.

Indeed they are. And so, one day, you will be one of your "undeserving."

I'll suffer the consequences of my choices--that's what real justice is.

That will be an interesting phrase for you to trot out in front of the Judge. "Your Honour, I have made my choices, and I deserve what I get."

I wouldn't do that, but of course, you can choose that, too.

...I do not regard my friends, or any other human beings, as obligated to pick up after me or take care of me, because I failed to provide for my own future. If that is your idea of what friends are for,...

I can't imagine where you got that idea. I never said any such thing. You imagined it, I guess.

But this I do know: obligated they may not be, but friends are exactly the people who "pick you up" and "care for" you, just as you are for them, if you are their friend. They're not obligated, but then, friendship itself is not an obligation.

Being an island is overrated, and is a formula for dying alone.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 6:29 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:53 pm ...what you think is science is not science at all.

Sure it is.

Science is empirical and inductive. Those aren't even controversial claims, and it's anybody who doesn't know that who doesn't know science.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am
It's not clear at all what this means.

You mean it's not clear to you.

No, I mean it's not clear to anybody except you. You may take for granted certain things are "self-destructive to one's own being," but I guarantee you that not all people think your set of so-called "self-destructive" practices are actually self-destructive.

So you need to justify your account of "self-destructiveness." And you're going to get doubt.

...my nature requires me to live by rationally directed conscious choice

Well, you think that 's what you're doing. But you're mistaken, because you manifest that you don't know anything about your own first premises. You actually seem to take for granted that something is "rational" on no other basis than that RC happens, for now, to believe in it.

I can't help you.

The reason for this is that your own values are not universal, objectively and rational, the way you're supposing they are; just like 99% of the world's people are not rationally-deficient, but rather many of them are simply reasoning from premises you don't share.

But since you appear to know or acknowledge any of your own first premises, what are the chances are you even going to see theirs, and then recognize them as rational beings? Not very great, obviously.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 1:11 am It might well be in your interest to commit a murder, or at least a theft, and it's not at all transparent how either would be "self-destructive to one's own being," at least in the world as you describe it.

It is not possible that any intentional harm done to another or any gain at the expense of another could be in my self interest.

It is more than possible for you, though. Could it be in your self-interest to "borrow supplies" from work? Could it be in your self-interest to lie about your achievements, or to exaggerate your own rationality and insult others? Could it be in your self-interest to kill an intruder who had broken into your house and was attempting to rob or harm you? Could it be in your self-interest to shoot a terrorist who was trying to kill a bus load of children?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jun 13, 2021 4:30 am There is also no "right to liberty," and no "right to property" -- meaning no right to keep what you think you "earned" or "provided for yourself."

Only individual's who are fully capable to supporting their own life and have no interest in interfering in anyone else's are capable of enjoying or deserve the society of others.

So dependent persons...the elderly, children, the needy, the mentally-ill, the handicapped...these are all "undeserving," in your view?

The basis of all benevolent human relations is the positive value each can be to others.

That implies that human worth isn't intrinsic, but depends on their usefulness to you.

Any despot believes that.

...the diminished capacity and potential handicaps of old age are inevitable.

Indeed they are. And so, one day, you will be one of your "undeserving."

I'll suffer the consequences of my choices--that's what real justice is.

That will be an interesting phrase for you to trot out in front of the Judge. "Your Honour, I have made my choices, and I deserve what I get."

I wouldn't do that, but of course, you can choose that, too.

...I do not regard my friends, or any other human beings, as obligated to pick up after me or take care of me, because I failed to provide for my own future. If that is your idea of what friends are for,...

I can't imagine where you got that idea. I never said any such thing. You imagined it, I guess.

But this I do know: obligated they may not be, but friends are exactly the people who "pick you up" and "care for" you, just as you are for them, if you are their friend. They're not obligated, but then, friendship itself is not an obligation.

Being an island is overrated, and is a formula for dying alone.

I see you are determined not to understand me, which is fine. I thought you were interested in understanding my veiw, but the only thing you seem interested in attempting to prove I'm wrong. That's OK too, but it's a waste of both our time, so I won't waste any more of yours. I just wish you the best!

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Tue Jun 15, 2021 1:00 am I see you are determined not to understand me...

I'm not at all. I'm just thinking that if you expect "reason" to provide you with your premises, that's impossible. And I can see you can't even give me one example of a premise that nothing but reason, absent any empirical observation, compels, and certainly no moral premises; so I'm pretty sure you can't find any by that means either.

I just wish you the best!

As I do you. Always.

It's good to be able to disagree without unkindness. That's philosophy at its best.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:53 pm
Speak for yourself. It is not possible that any intentional harm done to another or any gain at the expense of another could be in my self interest.

really? are you sure?

you are a Russian soldier 1941 Germans are invading your homeland you.

1. I can't kill another - se your statement above - you ly down the german kills you - then adds you to his stew for flavor
2. you ignore your statement above, and kill the gernman invading son of a bitch.
3. play dumb, i know nothing about my quotes above - and claim "squirrel" to divert the weak minded from disscussion of the relivant topic to the irrelivent.

here another possible event: you are a father (and have access to a gun in your home). thieve have entered your home - one of them is a psycho with a gun - you wake up, he is in your daughters room -he intended tp rape your kid, but now that you woke up and are in front of him - he now decides to shoot your duaghter: you do - which.

1. lay down your - per your statements above i italisized - and just sit there while the theif rapes your daughter
2. ignore your professed pascifisome(sp) - se the bold quotes from your above - and blast the son of a bitch bfore he kills then (or vise versa) rapes my daughter.
3. play "Squirrel" (Veg's fav game).

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:53 pm
What kind of person could even think it could be in their self interest to commit a murder?

the world is full of gray, its not bw - so one should not have such a bw view on such matters.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:53 pm
What are you talking about?

yes what is he talking about?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:53 pm Only individual's who are fully capable to supporting their own life and have no interest in interfering in anyone else's are capable of enjoying or deserve the society of others. The basis of all benevolent human relations is the positive value each can be to others. No one enjoys the society of others more than a free independent individual, and no one is of more value to others than free independent individuals who are never a threat or danger to others and seek nothing from others but what every individual chooses to share.

Exactly - the Libertarian view and mine as well. I view myself as a Liberal Libertarian BTW.