(SG)

(desertrat)

And you may be interested in my web page, http://www.geocities.com/golwis

You'll find many of Lysander Spooner's essays there with links to some of his other essays.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(SG)

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Well, a moral value has no space-time dimensions. It is pure representation, that is, derived from the subject, as opposed to being derived from a percieved object, but you seem to be contending that such representations have an objectivity in themselves. Thus in mathematics which is also pure representation, there are definite rules which everyone must follow.

The objectivity of such conceptualizations bears more investigation, however, unlike mathematics in which everyone must agree one is one, two is two and so on, there is no definitive unit of "good" or "bad" in moral philosophy. If anything, the objectivity you seek is in making the distinction not between "good" and "bad" but between moral and amoral. Without making such a distinction, morality looses all meaning just as without making a distinction between one and two, mathematics looses all meaning.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Watch out for that fine line between moral values and acts which trespass the moral jurisdiction of another individual. Once that line is crossed there is no distinction between the man's behavior and the tiger's. So long as that line is not crossed each man freely lives in accordance with his own subjective set of morals at peace with all other men who live freely in accordance with their own subjective set of morals.

You apparently make the mistake of thinking that I believe that because all moral values are subjective anything can pass as moral. Perhaps you think that this follows logically. It does not. When a person makes a claim that moral value X is "good," this is nothing more than a subjective claim. Moral value X may indeed be amoral, in which case the person claiming to be moral is a pretender.

Let me make a statement that might clarify my position, all moral claims are subjective, but some moral claims, in fact many, are not really moral at all. I don't claim that with morality, anything goes and no claim is more valid than another, but I do say that of those claims that, if acted upon are not amoral, all are equally valid.

Murder, rape, theivery, deception... these are aspects of an amoral world. To make any claim that such acts can be moral is at best pretensious. For morality to have any meaning, it must be distinguished from behavior which is amoral.

(SG)

(desertrat)

And herein lies my question put to the AFS list, is the legal system of the future utopia to be based upon some shared coherent moral standard determined by philosophers who know best what is likely to produce true individual happiness, or is it to be based upon some arbitrary rules imposed by force with the object in mind to allow all individuals to experiment with different moral standards in search of what they individually believe will most likely produce their own happiness?

(desertrat)

My whole point is that in nature force will be initiated, in a "moral" society, such initiations of force must be prohibited. For a man to live morally free in a jungle full of tigers, the initiation of force on the part of the tigers must be opposed forcibly. There is no common morality that the tigers can share with the man but there must be a common legality for the man to live morally free among the tigers.

(desertrat)

Moral standards are not arbitrary but subjective. The moral value that says brutal rape is ok, in and of itself is harmful to no one. Acting in accordance with that moral standard removes both rapist and raped into the realm of Nature which is amoral, so such morality is pretense.

Furthermore, to say that one moral standard is "as good as" another is petitio principii, what is "good?" The answer can only be subjective.

(SG)

My point, as ever, is that there IS a rational and coherent set of ethics. You deny that there is such a thing and have returned to the argument that it's all arbitrary and subjective.

(desertrat)

Not arbitrary but subjective, as in, not judged by an arbiter but by the subject himself (or herself.) I deny that true moral values can be objectively determined, I do not deny that there is a rational and coherent distinction between what is moral and what is not moral.

You are about to loose my point if you don't read that last sentence carefully. When I say "not moral" I do NOT mean "immoral" or "bad," I mean AMORAL. There IS a very rational and coherent distinction between what is moral, whether "good" or "bad" judged subjectively, and what is amoral, that is, neither "good" nor "bad."

Nor do I deny that the great majority of mankind is in dire need of self-examination. The greatest problem is not that we don't agree on what is "good" and what is "bad," but that we don't distinguish between what is moral and what is NOT MORAL. Without making such a distinction, morals will more often be moral pretense than true morals regardless of their rationality or coherency.

Have you read "Romeo and Juliet?" Have you ever loved? Do you think love and longing are just silly emotions with no serious consequences?

(SG)

You are now being offensive, but worse, you are confusing rationaility with rationalism. To be rational does not preclude love or feelings. I do not think you truly believe this, you are just getting carried away.

(desertrat)

Fair enough. I'd like to think I can still get carried away in matters of love.

I must again say, "Oh please!" The stranger is "better" than the boatman on purely subjective grounds. None of the characters has any real "part" in the drama or all of the characters have an equal "part." They are all equally weighing the advantages against the opportunity costs based on their individual system of moral values. Nobody has committed a crime. No decision of any individual can be made by any other individual and though one individual might consider the other to be irrational, he cannot be certain because his values are subjective.

(desertrat)

Uh, wrong, you don't "have me right" at all. I hope I've made that clear. A murderer hacking the head off a 2-year old child is acting AMORALLY. Any "morals," however subjective, are pretense. He may be simply weighing the advantages and opportunity costs in the same way a tiger would, but his actions are amoral, not moral, and his morality is merely pretense.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

Well, most men ARE weak, most men ARE pathetic and such men are no more "responsible" for their circumstances than the tigers or the cockroaches, nor should they be dealt with differently than any other predator or parasite. Man CAN, however, live apart from nature, that is, morally as opposed to amorally, and man CAN claim responsibility for improving his circumstances which is what true freedom is all about.

(desertrat)

You've fallen into a mental trap by reading superficially what I've written and labelling me as a subjectivist. Once I've been labelled, there's no further reason to listen to anything I have to say, you already know my point of view. I have repeatedly referred to an objective distinction between morality and amorality, but because I say that within the realm of morality all opinions are subjective, you label me as a subjectivist without even considering my assertion that a distinctly objective line can be drawn, must be drawn, between moral behavior, that which we call "good" behavior and "bad" behavior subjectively, and amoral behavior, which you may call objectively "bad" behavior, although the terms "good" and "bad" have no real meaning in an amoral environment. That you don't like the term "amoral" as you say later in this post testifies of the fact that you haven't given the distinction between MORAL behavior, whether we call it "moral" or "immoral," and AMORAL behavior, which makes no such distinction, much thought.

(desertrat)

And, of course, if you're going to label me, you might as well not bother even responding since you already know every point I'm going to make.

(desertrat)

Well, you'll have to clarify this statement. It sounds to me like you are contradicting yourself. Aren't "god" and mysticism concepts? If they ARE concepts and ANY concept cannot be nullified, then the assertion that, "the entire contents of a man's mind stem purely (only) from the external world, in particular, sensory input alone," cannot be true. The concept of "god" and mysticism have some validity, as concepts, ANY concept, as you assert, stemming purely (only) from the external world, in particular sensory input alone.

Where is the sensory input that validates the concept in a man's mind of 'god' and mysticism and if such a thing makes the concept valid then how is it possible to say that 'god,' mysticism of a 'higher plane,' being concepts that can't be nullified, are not sources of input.

This sounds to me more like a relativist's position.

The truth is, there must be something objective before any concept can have any meaning and, of course, the concept of god is not based on anything objective. It is devoid of meaning.

This is not to say that it has no 'meaning' for some, but this meaning is purely subjective and has no basis in observation or deduction. This is not true of morality. There is an objective basis for morals, but you don't see the objective distinction I'm referring to because you've labelled me as a subjectivist. The point of our disagreement is that what you see as objective, I see as subjective and what I see as objective, you don't see at all, viz., the distinction between morality and amorality. When I say, "a man is acting amorally," you read, "a man is acting immorally."

(SG)

(desertrat)

Then stop labelling me a subjectivist because I've said repeatedly that NOT everything can pass as moral.

(SG)

(desertrat)

Ok, let me try this again. All behavior is either moral or amoral. The objective line that can be drawn between moral behavior and amoral behavior is defined by the use of force and deception. In nature, force and deception are the rule. A man living in an amoral environment must rely on force and deception when dealing with the predators and parasites which surround him. Moral behavior is possible only when the relationship between the individuals involved is purely voluntary.

John Locke referred to this objective line only he used the terms "a state of nature," a misnomer, or "a state of society" when referring to moral society, and "a state of war" when referring to amoral nature or the true state of nature.

"...he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him;..."

"...he that in a state of society would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth must be supposed to design to take away from them everything else, and so be looked on as in a state of war."

"...let his pretence be what it will,..."

"But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow subject."

- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Ch. III.

Of course, John Locke goes on to refer to "judges" and to "god" as the common superior. This is nothing more than a subjective claim. The important point to make is that force and deception remove both perpetrator AND the potential victim from the "state of society" or morality and into a "state of war" or amorality, nature as it IS objectively, in which force and deception are the rule for both perpetrator and potential victim.

The distinction between initiatory and retaliatory force is superfluous. The only laws necessary for moral society are the prohibition of force and deception because only these "short-circuit" moral society, that is, they remove the individual from a moral environment and place him in an amoral environment. Even this law of prohibiting force and deception cannot be enforced in moral society because the enFORCEment of the law necessarily removes both criminal and enforcer from moral society into an amoral state of nature. The law prohibiting force and deception, like all other moral laws, must be voluntarily or moral society cannot exist.

What's more, the society we live in is largely amoral. You, as an individual, are more likely to be the victim of initiatory force imposed by the pretenders who call themselves supporters of government or "public servants" than you are likely to be the victim of initiatory force or fraud perpetrated by an individual calling himself a thief, murderer or rapist.

Moral society is actually more rare than most people think. Furthermore, most people are incapable of making the distinction between individuals acting like animals, such as when a police officer enforces a law prohibiting prostitution, and individuals acting morally, such as voluntarily exchanging money for sex.

When a person offers another person $100 for sex, the two have sex and the $100 is exchanged on a voluntary basis. This is moral behavior, though some would call it immoral, some would say such behavior is "animalistic." (remember that the term immoral has meaning only in reference to morality, not amorality.)

When a person robs, rapes or attempts to murder another person, he has essentially declared himself to be operating in an amoral state and must be dealt with amorally, which is to say, by the imposition of force (call it retaliatory if you like.) He cannot be dealt with in a moral state because his actions are not honest and voluntary.

Why is fraud or the initiation of force unacceptable in moral society? Not because man is a rational being and it short-circuits his rational mind preventing him from living "as a man." Even in an amoral environment where a man is subject to force on the part of animals, man can still use his rational mind and live "as a man."

Fraud and the initiation of force is unacceptable in moral society because if accepted, society ceases to be moral altogether.

A man living in a society where vices are called crimes, that is, a society in which many of the individuals profess to be living morally (this is pretense) but whose actions are indistinguishable from those of animals living in nature, relying on force or fraud to impose their "morality" on others, can live "as a man," relying on his rational mind to deal with others morally or amorally as the situation requires.

Society is largely amoral because people generally are incapable of distinguishing between vices and virtues, which are purely subjective, and crimes which can be objectively defined.

You are about to loose my point if you don't read that last sentence carefully. When I say "not moral" I do NOT mean "immoral" or "bad," I mean AMORAL. There IS a very rational and coherent distinction between what is moral, whether "good" or "bad" judged subjectively, and what is amoral, that is, neither "good" nor "bad."

(SG)

No, not if you are a subjectivist. Whether something is good, bad or neither (amoral) or outside the terms of those definitions is a purely subjective thing - unique to any one person.

(desertrat)

So stop labelling me. I'm not a subjectivist. I do assert that vice and virtue, good and bad, moral and immoral are essentially subjective. Whether there is anything that can be called a virtue or a vice, good or bad, moral or immoral objectively is something that can be determined easily only in hindsight. The wisest men in history have not united with a definitive verdict on the subject. But morality and amorality are childishly simple to distinguish. The child at a very early age learns that there is something "wrong" with harming another person, something "wrong" with stealing, something "wrong" with dishonesty, in essence, something "wrong" with fraud and the initiation of force. It deprives the individual from his ability to live his or her own life.

To repeat the quote of Lysander Spooner's "Natural Law" that you scoffed at earlier.

"Children learn the fundamental principles of natural law at a very early age. Thus they very early understand that one child must not, without just cause, strike or otherwise hurt, another; that one child must not assume any arbitrary control or domination over another; that one child must not, either by force, deceit, or stealth, obtain possession of anything that belongs to another; that if one child commits any of these wrongs against another, it is not only the right of the injured child to resist, and, if need be, punish the wrongdoer, and compel him to make reparation, but that it is also the right, and the moral duty, of all other children, and all other persons, to assist the injured party in defending his rights, and redressing his wrongs. These are fundamental principles of natural law, which govern the most important transactions of man with man. Yet children learn them earlier than they learn that three and three are six, or five and five ten. Their childish plays, even, could not be carried on without a constant regard to them; and it is equally impossible for persons of any age to live together in peace on any other conditions."

"Natural Law," Lysander Spooner.

(desertrat)

(SG)

(desertrat)

You're putting words into my mouth here. I said it was amoral, I did NOT say "incapable of being judged by another," I did NOT say acceptable. Such behavior removes both victim and assailant into the realm of amorality, the state John Locke referred to as "a state of war."