5AF Philosophy Thread

[Guinness]

Quick question - do you contest my self-ownership argument?

Common rights - Natural or God-given rights - are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the product of your life and liberty (property), and thus all of the consequences thereof (e.g., since I have a right to my life, I have a right to defend my life, etc.).

the right to life - agree
right to liberty - agree
right to the product of your life and liberty - agree
all of the consequences thereof - This is where the area gets more gray.

Agreed.

ETA: As a professed leftist, are you sure you agree with point #3?

[Guinness]

Is living a right or merely an instinct?
My dog would certainly do anything he could to preserve his life (and probably mine too).

So we're back to "rights" (but only for human beings) being a gift from God and/or a dark corner of the universe. That's just silly.

Rational, conscious life is what we're talking about, here. But your point isn't without merit. People who respect and understand the nature of the gift of life do not take it or watch it end without respecting the loss.

[MWB]

Quick question - do you contest my self-ownership argument?

Common rights - Natural or God-given rights - are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the product of your life and liberty (property), and thus all of the consequences thereof (e.g., since I have a right to my life, I have a right to defend my life, etc.).

the right to life - agree
right to liberty - agree
right to the product of your life and liberty - agree
all of the consequences thereof - This is where the area gets more gray.

Agreed.

ETA: As a professed leftist, are you sure you agree with point #3?

I'm not as much of a leftist as you'd like to think I am. I vote the way I do based on the reality of our society.

[columbia]

Is living a right or merely an instinct?
My dog would certainly do anything he could to preserve his life (and probably mine too).

So we're back to "rights" (but only for human beings) being a gift from God and/or a dark corner of the universe. That's just silly.

Rational, conscious life is what we're talking about, here. But your point isn't without merit. People who respect and understand the nature of the gift of life do not take it or watch it end without respecting the loss.

ie Through a lens of (your) belief.

[genoscoif]

Is living a right or merely an instinct?
My dog would certainly do anything he could to preserve his life (and probably mine too).

So we're back to "rights" (but only for human beings) being a gift from God and/or a dark corner of the universe. That's just silly.

Rational, conscious life is what we're talking about, here. But your point isn't without merit. People who respect and understand the nature of the gift of life do not take it or watch it end without respecting the loss.

ie Through a lens of (your) belief.

That's really the biggest downfall with this philosophy. Everyone would view life, liberty, and right to property through their own biased perspective.

[Guinness]

Quick question - do you contest my self-ownership argument?

Common rights - Natural or God-given rights - are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the product of your life and liberty (property), and thus all of the consequences thereof (e.g., since I have a right to my life, I have a right to defend my life, etc.).

the right to life - agree
right to liberty - agree
right to the product of your life and liberty - agree
all of the consequences thereof - This is where the area gets more gray.

Agreed.

ETA: As a professed leftist, are you sure you agree with point #3?

I'm not as much of a leftist as you'd like to think I am. I vote the way I do based on the reality of our society.

That kind of feels like paddling toward the waterfall.

[Guinness]

Is living a right or merely an instinct?
My dog would certainly do anything he could to preserve his life (and probably mine too).

So we're back to "rights" (but only for human beings) being a gift from God and/or a dark corner of the universe. That's just silly.

Rational, conscious life is what we're talking about, here. But your point isn't without merit. People who respect and understand the nature of the gift of life do not take it or watch it end without respecting the loss.

ie Through a lens of (your) belief.

That's really the biggest downfall with this philosophy. Everyone would view life, liberty, and right to property through their own biased perspective.

That's really the biggest downfall of ANY philosophy. That doesn't seem to me to be the point of a philosophical discussion - whether or not an idea has any legs among the general population. I mean, if that is the merit upon which philosophy is to be judged, Keeping Up With the Kardashians will be our society's contribution to human posterity. And at this point, that's not necessarily a bad bet. But that shouldn't be our standard.

[Kraftster]

So I make sure we're speaking the same language, in what sense do you contend an individual has ownership over his or her life?

Also, Do I understand correctly that we derive the (apparently objective) truth that all men are created equal from the fact that there is no objective basis upon which to conclude all men are unequal?

[Guinness]

So I make sure we're speaking the same language, in what sense do you contend an individual has ownership over his or her life?

In the sense that he absolutely owns his life.

ETA: As such, all associations must necessarily be voluntary. Coerced associations are a violation of his sovereignty.

Also, Do I understand correctly that we derive the (apparently objective) truth that all men are created equal from the fact that there is no objective basis upon which to conclude all men are unequal?

No Kraftster, you're not capable of devising in instrument by which we can measure the superiority of some men versus others.

Man is man. Some are smarter, some are stronger. Some are more canny. None live forever. None have supernatural ability. There are no merits apparent according to his birth into some particular race, or some particular locality, or one or the other sex. Any particular merit upon which one may wish to assess him is subjective - strength, intelligence, cunning, beauty.

[Kraftster]

I've moved a lot since we last had this dance, so don't argue against skeletons. you won't know my current views until the right time.

In truth, I just want to take a position to keep this discussion going.

So, let's deal with the logic of it. Premise no 1 (going back to your long post on p3--on phone don't want to mess with quoting) re ownership, I just want to make sure I have a definitional understanding before engaging.

Premise no 2, setting aside my continuing problem with "man is man" - let's say that's the case - does your argument not presuppose the existence of any objective truth (or what that would look like if it did exist).

[Guinness]

I've moved a lot since we last had this dance, so don't argue against skeletons. you won't know my current views until the right time.

In truth, I just want to take a position to keep this discussion going.

So, let's deal with the logic of it. Premise no 1 (going back to your long post on p3--on phone don't want to mess with quoting) re ownership, I just want to make sure I have a definitional understanding before engaging.

As a distinct, sovereign individual (short version - Can you think my thoughts? Can I think your thoughts? Can you move my body? Can I move your body? Can you feel my emotions? Can I feel your emotions? Etc.) A man's life is his own. Whose else but his could it be? Parenthetically, it's often at this point that collectivists will jump in and point out the many ways a man's life has been influenced and impacted by others. Individualists shouldn't deny this, but there is no binding, contractual claim on that man's life as a consequence, unless he specifically and individually consented.

Premise no 2, setting aside my continuing problem with "man is man" - let's say that's the case - does your argument not presuppose the existence of any objective truth (or what that would look like if it did exist).

Objective truth, in that it is logically deductible... not in that it has been handed down from on high and is therefore indisputable. To borrow the phrase of Thomas Jefferson, that men are created equal is self-evident. That effectively means that any reasonably capable person is able to come to that conclusion on his own, without revelation, or without scientific methodology (see above).

So I would say so, and that is what it looks like, if we can agree on that concept of objective truth.

[columbia]

Can you explain why you believe that only "sentient" beings have said rights, without invoking any aspect of your religion?

[Guinness]

Can you explain why you believe that only "sentient" beings have said rights, without invoking any aspect of your religion?

Um, I'm pretty sure I just did exactly that.

ETA: Correction - not "sentient" beings, but human beings. Not sure what your point is, re: sentient.

[columbia]

You have not.

[Guinness]

You have not.

I certainly did not bring religion into the matter.

[columbia]

Note the word only in my question.

What is the basis for your distinction between yourself and a carp? Saying that only you are sentient doesn't explain an exclusivity on rights.

[MWB]

Quick question - do you contest my self-ownership argument?

Common rights - Natural or God-given rights - are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the product of your life and liberty (property), and thus all of the consequences thereof (e.g., since I have a right to my life, I have a right to defend my life, etc.).

the right to life - agree
right to liberty - agree
right to the product of your life and liberty - agree
all of the consequences thereof - This is where the area gets more gray.

Agreed.

ETA: As a professed leftist, are you sure you agree with point #3?

I'm not as much of a leftist as you'd like to think I am. I vote the way I do based on the reality of our society.

That kind of feels like paddling toward the waterfall.

I can be realistic and deal with the current society we have and do what I feel is best, or I can abstain. I understand your abstention, and wanting nothing to do with the whole process though.

[Guinness]

Note the word only in my question.

What is the basis for your distinction between yourself and a carp? Saying that only you are sentient doesn't explain an exclusivity on rights.

I don't recall mentioning sentience as prerequisite for self-ownership, and if I did, I certainly misspoke.

I don't necessarily disagree that a carp owns it's life. In fact, I would agree that a carp owns its life. I don't see the impact on the philosophy overall.

[columbia]

Note the word only in my question.

What is the basis for your distinction between yourself and a carp? Saying that only you are sentient doesn't explain an exclusivity on rights.

I don't recall mentioning sentience as prerequisite for self-ownership, and if I did, I certainly misspoke.

I don't necessarily disagree that a carp owns it's life. In fact, I would agree that a carp owns its life. I don't see the impact on the philosophy overall.

So what gives you the right to eat something, as that generally involves forcible death, aka murder.

Note: I probably wouldn't eat a carp, so let's think about cows instead.

[Guinness]

the right to life - agree
right to liberty - agree
right to the product of your life and liberty - agree
all of the consequences thereof - This is where the area gets more gray.

Agreed.

ETA: As a professed leftist, are you sure you agree with point #3?

I'm not as much of a leftist as you'd like to think I am. I vote the way I do based on the reality of our society.

That kind of feels like paddling toward the waterfall.

I can be realistic and deal with the current society we have and do what I feel is best, or I can abstain. I understand your abstention, and wanting nothing to do with the whole process though.

That's only one element of it. I can abstain from participating in the electoral process, but unless Factorial gets the desire of his heart and I uproot my life and try to sustain myself in one of the very few "ungoverned" tracts of land on the planet (mostly Antarctica), I cannot abstain from being a victim of it. You vote for your leader, and suddenly he or she is now MY leader, too. You vote for higher taxes, and now you're taxed more and I'M taxed more. You vote for the war candidate, and now your kid is heading off to war and MY kid is heading off to war. Despite the rhetoric, this is not "civilized". It's actually quite barbaric.

[Guinness]

Note the word only in my question.

What is the basis for your distinction between yourself and a carp? Saying that only you are sentient doesn't explain an exclusivity on rights.

I don't recall mentioning sentience as prerequisite for self-ownership, and if I did, I certainly misspoke.

I don't necessarily disagree that a carp owns it's life. In fact, I would agree that a carp owns its life. I don't see the impact on the philosophy overall.

So what gives you the right to eat something, as that generally involves forcible death, aka murder.

Note: I probably wouldn't eat a carp, so let's think about cows instead.

Because a cow is not a human being. It is not capable of advanced reasoning, and the myriad other ways to differentiate a cow from a human beyond mere esthetics.

This isn't to suggest that a cows life is worthless, but it is worth less. I don't believe that any life should be taken for granted.

[MWB]

So I can vote and be a part of the choice in evils or I can just sit back and get screwed by the evil without being a part. I see the moral ground of your position, and can respect it. My long goal, and I'll admit to its impossibility, would be to have a system that is completely different than the current one. That requires change from within.

[columbia]

Hmmmm:

In fact, I would agree that a carp owns its life.

We've switched to cows, but you obviously believe that is in fact NOT true for either species.

Because a cow is not a human being. It is not capable of advanced reasoning

What stipulates that these higher order rights only apply to entities capable of "advanced reasoning", aka human beings?

[Guinness]

So I can vote and be a part of the choice in evils or I can just sit back and get screwed by the evil without being a part. I see the moral ground of your position, and can respect it.

Aside from asking you to join me as an outright anti-statist, I couldn't expect much more than this.

[Willie Kool]

Source of the post collectivists will jump in and point out the many ways a man's life has been influenced and impacted by others. Individualists shouldn't deny this, but there is no binding, contractual claim on that man's life as a consequence, unless he specifically and individually consented.

It is sociopathic to not consent.