Logical Primaries

[higgs629]

I suspect that much of our differences are simply in what we consider to be our logical primaries rather than the application of those primaries.

The Free-Market capitalist generally believes the following:

That all individuals have basic inalienable rights:

The first of these is the right to life.

It is from the right to life that we free-marketeers derive all other rights, including the right to property, right to free speech, right to bear arms, right to privacy and so on and so forth.

All of these rights are based upon the same negative quality, they are not a right to a thing, but rather rights to be free of physical force, that is to be free of coercion.

This means that the right to property for instance according to capitalists is not the right to be provided with property, but rather the right to create, own, and trade that property which you own.

Further examples include the right to free speech (one has the right to express ones opinions, but not the right to demand someone else provide one with a medium to spread ones opinions. ie You have the right to speak, but not the right to be provided with someone elses microphone with which to speak.)

The right to life therefore according to capitalists is to live ones life as one chooses and to consume values to sustain it, assuming one does not use physical force or coercion to achieve those values.

Capitalists do not agree that money, or trade can ever be coercion without physical force. ie, It is not coercion to offer you a job, nor is it coercion to threaten to fire you. No physical force has been involved. I did not use a gun to press you into labor, and in turn you do not use a gun to rob me when I no longer wish to trade with you.

This is the nature of the capitalistic right to life, it is a negative right as are all capitalistic rights.

Under what I have been able to tease out of Communist philosophy they too believe in the right to life. But, they believe it in a positive sense, ie one has the right to be provided with the things necessary to life.

This means that society is obligated to provide the individual with the values necessary to sustain his life (food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc).

The right to property in the capitalistic sense therefore does not exist in Communist philosophy because ownership is the ability to deny someone else use of a value, and if someone else finds that value necessary to sustain his life society is obligated to provide him with it.

There may be positive property rights in communist society such as, one has the right to a bed, or one has the right to a chair. However, there can be no negative property rights because they would contradict both the original communist right to life and and any existing positive property rights.

It is essentially from this disagreement over the exact nature of the right to life that is at the crux of the disagreement between communists and capitalists.

Both groups generally agree that reason is the only way to gain knowledge from the universe, in other words faith and intuition do not. Therefore the only way to figure things out is to use reason.

I assert, without proof, that the right to life is in fact not a logical primary, but its nature can instead be determined from the nature of man, the nature of the universe, and reason. Therefore it should be possible in priniciple to show, based on our assumption that the only way to conclude such things is through application of reason, that the right to life is either of an inherently positive or negative nature.

So I end this with a challenge, can either the capitalists or the communist prove rigorously that the right to life is of inherently positive or negative nature?

[Demogorgon]

Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:25 pm
Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.
I could just as easily claim that communism is based on the belief that a system of theft of property is best, and that all else is "just" ideology created after theft already came into being in order to justify it.

But that's not very interesting.

The point of this topic was whether the logic actually works or not given a certain set of axioms - when or how the logical arguments came into being is an irrelevant red herring.

[pusher robot]

So I end this with a challenge, can either the capitalists or the communist prove rigorously that the right to life is of inherently positive or negative nature?

My reasoning is inductive.

I start by noting that Man as an animal has one and only one survival advantage: his ability to reason. Thus, Man's ability to survive and thrive is predicated on his ability to think, and to act on the results of his thought.

The ability to act on the conclusions of one's mind necessarily entails the freedom to perform a wide variety actions, but does not in itself suggest any particular course of action.

Thus, we postulate a social environment that allows each individual as wide a latitude as possible for choosing the actions he believes are proper for himself, enjoying both the benefits and the costs of those choices, without which he cannot learn.

There's more, but I've not much time at the moment.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher robot+April 18, 2007 10:36 pm--> (pusher robot @ April 18, 2007 10:36 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 10:25 pm
Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.
I could just as easily claim that communism is based on the belief that a system of theft of property is best, and that all else is "just" ideology created after theft already came into being in order to justify it.

But that's not very interesting.

The point of this topic was whether the logic actually works or not given a certain set of axioms - when or how the logical arguments came into being is an irrelevant red herring. [/b]
No the justification is not very interesting really. It grew out of feudalism, came into being and some people thought it needed a justification. The trouble with any justification for it is that it works backwards, starting with a conclusion and tries to find some premises to suit it.

I have yet to find an argument of this style, in favour of capitalism, not utilising circular logic.

[higgs629]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 03:25 pm
Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.
Actually the negative rights to life, liberty, property and so on were created by Locke who lived while society was generally in a mercantalist period, not a capitalist one. Locke in fact predated capitalism. By capitalism I mean free-market capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by higgs629+April 18, 2007 11:25 pm--> (higgs629 @ April 18, 2007 11:25 pm)
[email protected] 18, 2007 03:25 pm
Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.
Actually the negative rights to life, liberty, property and so on were created by Locke who lived while society was generally in a mercantalist period, not a capitalist one. Locke in fact predated capitalism. By capitalism I mean free-market capitalism. [/b]
Locke was a classic example of working backwards to justify the current system. It is no co-incidence that Locke's ideal society pretty much describes the Government of England as it was at the time.

[higgs629]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 18, 2007 04:39 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 18, 2007 04:39 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:25 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 03:25 pm
Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.
Actually the negative rights to life, liberty, property and so on were created by Locke who lived while society was generally in a mercantalist period, not a capitalist one. Locke in fact predated capitalism. By capitalism I mean free-market capitalism.
Locke was a classic example of working backwards to justify the current system. It is no co-incidence that Locke's ideal society pretty much describes the Government of England as it was at the time. [/b]
You missed the point, laid the philosophical framework for capitalism. The conclusions he reached using that philosophical framework have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Furthermore your point is irrelevant.

For thousands of years man has used fire, only in the past couple hundred have we figured out how it works, does this mean that our conclusions about the physics of fire are wrong because we didn't come up with them before we made fire? Of course not. Your argument is baseless.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by higgs629+April 19, 2007 12:00 am--> (higgs629 @ April 19, 2007 12:00 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:39 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:25 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 03:25 pm
Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.
Actually the negative rights to life, liberty, property and so on were created by Locke who lived while society was generally in a mercantalist period, not a capitalist one. Locke in fact predated capitalism. By capitalism I mean free-market capitalism.
Locke was a classic example of working backwards to justify the current system. It is no co-incidence that Locke's ideal society pretty much describes the Government of England as it was at the time.
You missed the point, laid the philosophical framework for capitalism. The conclusions he reached using that philosophical framework have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Furthermore your point is irrelevant.

For thousands of years man has used fire, only in the past couple hundred have we figured out how it works, does this mean that our conclusions about the physics of fire are wrong because we didn't come up with them before we made fire? Of course not. Your argument is baseless. [/b]
What are you talking about now? Have you read Locke incidentally? You might not find exactly what you seem to think he wrote in his writing.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 19, 2007 12:05 am--> (Demogorgon @ April 19, 2007 12:05 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 12:00 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 04:39 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:25 pm

[email protected] 18, 2007 03:25 pm
Capitalism is based on the belief a system of ownership of property is best. All else you list is just ideology, that was created after the system already came into being in order to justify it.
Actually the negative rights to life, liberty, property and so on were created by Locke who lived while society was generally in a mercantalist period, not a capitalist one. Locke in fact predated capitalism. By capitalism I mean free-market capitalism.
Locke was a classic example of working backwards to justify the current system. It is no co-incidence that Locke's ideal society pretty much describes the Government of England as it was at the time.
You missed the point, laid the philosophical framework for capitalism. The conclusions he reached using that philosophical framework have nothing to do with the matter at hand. Furthermore your point is irrelevant.

For thousands of years man has used fire, only in the past couple hundred have we figured out how it works, does this mean that our conclusions about the physics of fire are wrong because we didn't come up with them before we made fire? Of course not. Your argument is baseless.
What are you talking about now? Have you read Locke incidentally? You might not find exactly what you seem to think he wrote in his writing. [/b]
This entire line of argument is irrelevant. Let's try to stay on topic.

[KC]

The overall list of "rights" you have mentioned in your post don't discuss the nature of equality in relation to the "freedoms" offered by the aforementioned rights. For example, take this following quote:


Further examples include the right to free speech (one has the right to express ones opinions, but not the right to demand someone else provide one with a medium to spread ones opinions. ie You have the right to speak, but not the right to be provided with someone elses microphone with which to speak.)

You say that people should have freedom of speech, as long as this doesn't impede on others' right to property. The problem with this is that, in this example, speech isn't equal. The speech of the owner of the microphone is much more widely received than the speech of the non-owner. So while both might have equal right to free speech, one's speech is in fact more powerful and influential than the other's.


The right to life therefore according to capitalists is to live ones life as one chooses and to consume values to sustain it, assuming one does not use physical force or coercion to achieve those values.

The problem is that on a societal level coercion (and sometimes even physical force) is used by capitalists to maintain the conditions of their life.


Capitalists do not agree that money, or trade can ever be coercion without physical force. ie, It is not coercion to offer you a job, nor is it coercion to threaten to fire you. No physical force has been involved. I did not use a gun to press you into labor, and in turn you do not use a gun to rob me when I no longer wish to trade with you.

On an individual level it definitely does seem so. But the problem with this assertion is that it doesn't examine the big picture; it's not reconcilable with how capitalism works as an integrated system. Let's take an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Let's say there's 100 people on an island, with 5 factories owned by 5 different owners; the other 95 people are workers. Just to create a closed system, let's say that nobody can enter or leave the island. Now, while these 95 workers are able to choose who they apply to work for, the fact remains that they have to work for one of them. Individually, it doesn't seem like an individual capitalist is coercing any of the workers to work for them, because the workers can just go to one of the other capitalists for a job. But what happens when all 5 capitalists deny employment to these workers (or even a small percentage of them)?

The fact is that the worker must work for a capitalist. The other fact is that the capitalist has the ability to deny employment to any worker for any reason, thereby giving him the power to set the terms of employment. The worker must work under these terms.


Under what I have been able to tease out of Communist philosophy they too believe in the right to life. But, they believe it in a positive sense, ie one has the right to be provided with the things necessary to life.

This means that society is obligated to provide the individual with the values necessary to sustain his life (food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc).

This is false because you are misrepresenting the relationship of the individual to society. Society has the obligation to provide members of society with the necessary means to life; it doesn't have the obligation to provide the individual with those means. This at first glance may not make much sense but what I am trying to say is that an individual is also a member of society, and in looking at him as an individual separate from society you are misrepresenting the view of communists. As the individual is a member of society it is his obligation to help provide for society as a whole, which includes himself.


The right to property in the capitalistic sense therefore does not exist in Communist philosophy because ownership is the ability to deny someone else use of a value, and if someone else finds that value necessary to sustain his life society is obligated to provide him with it.

Property leads to class society. That is why communists oppose it. With the destruction of class society also comes the destruction of private property. Again, you are looking at it on an individual level when communists look at the societal level, and the overall effects of property on society as a whole.


There may be positive property rights in communist society such as, one has the right to a bed, or one has the right to a chair. However, there can be no negative property rights because they would contradict both the original communist right to life and and any existing positive property rights.

Giving someone a right to a bed or a chair is the same thing as prohibiting everyone else from using it. Property rights in a communist society won't exist because property won't exist.

[wtfm8lol]

The fact is that the worker must work for a capitalist. The other fact is that the capitalist has the ability to deny employment to any worker for any reason, thereby giving him the power to set the terms of employment. The worker must work under these terms.

i've said this before: asserting that since a worker must work for an employer, the employer has complete control over the conditions is as erroneous as asserting that since a firm must sell products to consumers, the consumers have total control over the price.

[KC]

i've said this before: asserting that since a worker must work for an employer, the employer has complete control over the conditions is as erroneous as asserting that since a firm must sell products to consumers, the consumers have total control over the price.

Of course the employer has complete control over the terms of employment; of course, the worker could refuse to work under certain conditions. But looking at society as a whole, the capitalist class will place basic conditions on the terms of employment, and it is up to the individual capitalist what terms they decide to come with besides that. The basic condition of all capitalists is, of course, paying workers less than the full value of their labour.

[higgs629]

Originally posted by Zampanò@April 18, 2007 10:01 pm
The overall list of "rights" you have mentioned in your post don't discuss the nature of equality in relation to the "freedoms" offered by the aforementioned rights. For example, take this following quote:


Further examples include the right to free speech (one has the right to express ones opinions, but not the right to demand someone else provide one with a medium to spread ones opinions. ie You have the right to speak, but not the right to be provided with someone elses microphone with which to speak.)

You say that people should have freedom of speech, as long as this doesn't impede on others' right to property. The problem with this is that, in this example, speech isn't equal. The speech of the owner of the microphone is much more widely received than the speech of the non-owner. So while both might have equal right to free speech, one's speech is in fact more powerful and influential than the other's.


The right to life therefore according to capitalists is to live ones life as one chooses and to consume values to sustain it, assuming one does not use physical force or coercion to achieve those values.

The problem is that on a societal level coercion (and sometimes even physical force) is used by capitalists to maintain the conditions of their life.


Capitalists do not agree that money, or trade can ever be coercion without physical force. ie, It is not coercion to offer you a job, nor is it coercion to threaten to fire you. No physical force has been involved. I did not use a gun to press you into labor, and in turn you do not use a gun to rob me when I no longer wish to trade with you.

On an individual level it definitely does seem so. But the problem with this assertion is that it doesn't examine the big picture; it's not reconcilable with how capitalism works as an integrated system. Let's take an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Let's say there's 100 people on an island, with 5 factories owned by 5 different owners; the other 95 people are workers. Just to create a closed system, let's say that nobody can enter or leave the island. Now, while these 95 workers are able to choose who they apply to work for, the fact remains that they have to work for one of them. Individually, it doesn't seem like an individual capitalist is coercing any of the workers to work for them, because the workers can just go to one of the other capitalists for a job. But what happens when all 5 capitalists deny employment to these workers (or even a small percentage of them)?

The fact is that the worker must work for a capitalist. The other fact is that the capitalist has the ability to deny employment to any worker for any reason, thereby giving him the power to set the terms of employment. The worker must work under these terms.


Under what I have been able to tease out of Communist philosophy they too believe in the right to life. But, they believe it in a positive sense, ie one has the right to be provided with the things necessary to life.

This means that society is obligated to provide the individual with the values necessary to sustain his life (food, water, shelter, healthcare, etc).

This is false because you are misrepresenting the relationship of the individual to society. Society has the obligation to provide members of society with the necessary means to life; it doesn't have the obligation to provide the individual with those means. This at first glance may not make much sense but what I am trying to say is that an individual is also a member of society, and in looking at him as an individual separate from society you are misrepresenting the view of communists. As the individual is a member of society it is his obligation to help provide for society as a whole, which includes himself.


The right to property in the capitalistic sense therefore does not exist in Communist philosophy because ownership is the ability to deny someone else use of a value, and if someone else finds that value necessary to sustain his life society is obligated to provide him with it.

Property leads to class society. That is why communists oppose it. With the destruction of class society also comes the destruction of private property. Again, you are looking at it on an individual level when communists look at the societal level, and the overall effects of property on society as a whole.


There may be positive property rights in communist society such as, one has the right to a bed, or one has the right to a chair. However, there can be no negative property rights because they would contradict both the original communist right to life and and any existing positive property rights.

Giving someone a right to a bed or a chair is the same thing as prohibiting everyone else from using it. Property rights in a communist society won't exist because property won't exist.
For the first half, you are missing the point of the thread, the assertion of this thread is that we disagree because we have different starting points. The challenge is to show how to derive your starting point solely from nature using only reason (ie, no faith, no intuition). Your criticism of the capitalist starting point is already well known and there is no need for you to repeat it here, it is off topic. If you believe that the capitalist viewpoint is being misrepresented and that the views of capitalists actually differ from this, that's fine. This isn't what you are stating though.

As to the second half,
Your criticisms of what I represented as the Communist viewpoint are significantly more on topic and justified (given that it is your point of view). I do not want to create a communist straw man, but rather try to fairly represent what communists actually believe, so please point out the edits you would like me to make and if I feel they are justifiably the logical primaries of the balance of communists I will make the edit to the original post. Your criticisms while good give me little indication as to what to replace it with. So by all means make editing suggestions.

[Demogorgon]

At any rate, the "initiation of force" stuff about coercion is extremely silly, and I don't know why most people still bother with it. Most serious defences of capitalism have long since dispensed with it.

If you say coercion and initiation of force are only a narrowly defined set of circumstances, you have to say why it is so bad, if other circumstances which result in the same effect can be judged to be ok. Obviously you are not saying initiation of force is wrong because of its effect (and here you are on very week ground), so what is it that makes it so bad in that case?

I guss what I have written can be summed up very simply, this kind of argument for capitalism is on very shaky ground because it is ignoring consequences. A non consequentialist ethical or political system can be a nice intellectual exercise but it isn't much use when applied to real people's lifes.

[higgs629]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 11:50 pm
At any rate, the "initiation of force" stuff about coercion is extremely silly, and I don't know why most people still bother with it. Most serious defences of capitalism have long since dispensed with it.

If you say coercion and initiation of force are only a narrowly defined set of circumstances, you have to say why it is so bad, if other circumstances which result in the same effect can be judged to be ok. Obviously you are not saying initiation of force is wrong because of its effect (and here you are on very week ground), so what is it that makes it so bad in that case?

I guss what I have written can be summed up very simply, this kind of argument for capitalism is on very shaky ground because it is ignoring consequences. A non consequentialist ethical or political system can be a nice intellectual exercise but it isn't much use when applied to real people's lifes.
OT

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 12:53 am
My reasoning is inductive.

I start by noting that Man as an animal has one and only one survival advantage: his ability to reason. Thus, Man's ability to survive and thrive is predicated on his ability to think, and to act on the results of his thought.

[...]

Thus, we postulate a social environment that allows each individual as wide a latitude as possible for choosing the actions he believes are proper for himself...
Typical Randian non-sequitur. I added some emphasis to point out where you commit the fallacy. You start from a general statement that "Man" (by which I assume you mean Humanity, or Mankind) needs to think and reason in order to survive, then you say that each individual human being is required to think and reason independently in order to survive.

That does not follow. There is no reason why Humanity cannot do its thinking and reasoning as a collective, thus ensuring its collective survival. In fact, you start from a collective premise and then move to an individual conclusion with no justification whatsoever.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

By the way, here is my logical primary for socialism and communism:

Human happiness is The Good. That which promotes human happiness is good; that which lowers human happiness is bad.

In other words, utilitarianism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 19, 2007 07:22 am--> (Edric O @ April 19, 2007 07:22 am)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 12:53 am
My reasoning is inductive.

I start by noting that Man as an animal has one and only one survival advantage: his ability to reason. Thus, Man's ability to survive and thrive is predicated on his ability to think, and to act on the results of his thought.

[...]

Thus, we postulate a social environment that allows each individual as wide a latitude as possible for choosing the actions he believes are proper for himself...
Typical Randian non-sequitur. I added some emphasis to point out where you commit the fallacy. You start from a general statement that "Man" (by which I assume you mean Humanity, or Mankind) needs to think and reason in order to survive, then you say that each individual human being is required to think and reason independently in order to survive.

That does not follow. There is no reason why Humanity cannot do its thinking and reasoning as a collective, thus ensuring its collective survival. In fact, you start from a collective premise and then move to an individual conclusion with no justification whatsoever. [/b]
Excellent point. Although it is not the first fallacy I noticed in his post.

I wonder if you agree that he has made an is/ought fallacy when he says peopl have a capacity to reason therefore there should have to be (his definition of) reason at every point? That's another Randian peace of nonsence.

Personally I am inclined to say, that yes humans are rather good at thinking, so we ought to think about how best to manage our resources and achieve the highest standard of living possible.

[Tungsten]

You say that people should have freedom of speech, as long as this doesn't impede on others' right to property. The problem with this is that, in this example, speech isn't equal. The speech of the owner of the microphone is much more widely received than the speech of the non-owner. So while both might have equal right to free speech, one's speech is in fact more powerful and influential than the other's.
The other person is free to buy his own microphone.

The problem is that on a societal level coercion (and sometimes even physical force) is used by capitalists to maintain the conditions of their life.What do you mean by "on a societal level"?

On an individual level it definitely does seem so. But the problem with this assertion is that it doesn't examine the big picture; it's not reconcilable with how capitalism works as an integrated system. Let's take an example to illustrate what I'm trying to say. Let's say there's 100 people on an island, with 5 factories owned by 5 different owners; the other 95 people are workers. Just to create a closed system, let's say that nobody can enter or leave the island. Now, while these 95 workers are able to choose who they apply to work for, the fact remains that they have to work for one of them. Individually, it doesn't seem like an individual capitalist is coercing any of the workers to work for them, because the workers can just go to one of the other capitalists for a job. But what happens when all 5 capitalists deny employment to these workers (or even a small percentage of them)?
They'll have to provide their own means of living. What if all 95 workers decide to go on strike? Won't the capitalists then have to do all the work for themselves?

You're not capable of looking at the world objectively. Your view is always worker-biased, which is why there's a double standard here.


Of course the employer has complete control over the terms of employment; of course, the worker could refuse to work under certain conditions. But looking at society as a whole, the capitalist class will place basic conditions on the terms of employment,
Do you think there's a dark room somewhere where all members of this mysterious class (most of whom have conflicting interests) congregate and cook up this nonsense? Once again, you viewpoint is completely biased. You see class unity where none exists.

The basic condition of all capitalists is, of course, paying workers less than the full value of their labour.
The consumer ultimately decides what the full value of their labour is worth, or not worth.

-


If you say coercion and initiation of force are only a narrowly defined set of circumstances, you have to say why it is so bad, if other circumstances which result in the same effect can be judged to be ok.
Because the other circumstances aren't usually caused by people.

Obviously you are not saying initiation of force is wrong because of its effect (and here you are on very week ground), so what is it that makes it so bad in that case?
I'd say it was primarily bad because of the effect. People don't tend to be very entusiastic about being robbed, enslaved, tortured or shot; those things tends to fit most people's definition of "bad". Perhaps you have some other standard of "bad" you'd like to share with us?

-


Human happiness is The Good.
I've already posted a link on the superiority of eudaimonia as a moral goal over the "common good". Did you bother to look at it?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:26 pm
Because the other circumstances aren't usually caused by people.

Oh but they are, you just use a very odd definition of cause


I'd say it was primarily bad because of the effect. People don't tend to be very entusiastic about being robbed, enslaved, tortured or shot; those things tends to fit most people's definition of "bad". Perhaps you have some other standard of "bad" you'd like to share with us?

Indeed? Why is it the that you fiercely defend a system that allows people to suffer and starve then? Does that not fit under most people's definition of bad too? Yet you always claim, that oh no, that is fine because it isn't being caused by what you refer to as initiating force.

Now you will shout and scream and throw tantrums that these things are unavoidable and aren't being caused by humans, but good luck trying to trace the causes withoutfinding human activity there. And at any rate humans can certainly stop these things happening, can't they?

[pusher robot]

You start from a general statement that "Man" (by which I assume you mean Humanity, or Mankind) needs to think and reason in order to survive, then you say that each individual human being is required to think and reason independently in order to survive.

No, I intended by my statement to mean that it is the nature of each and every animal of the sub-type "Man" that his own ability to think is his only survival tool. Each and every human being must think and reason independently because that is the only possible way that a human being can think and reason. There simply is no such thing as "collective reasoning," except as an aggregate if individual reasoning.


I wonder if you agree that he has made an is/ought fallacy when he says peopl have a capacity to reason therefore there should have to be (his definition of) reason at every point? That's another Randian peace of nonsence.

Would you attempt to stop the lion from hunting, or the horse from running, or the eagle from soaring? My argument is that it is in man's nature to reason, and act upon the results of his reasoning. To deprive him of that it is cruelty.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 03:29 pm
Would you attempt to stop the lion from hunting, or the horse from running, or the eagle from soaring? My argument is that it is in man's nature to reason, and act upon the results of his reasoning. To deprive him of that it is cruelty.
But it is a meaningless statement, unless you get some specifics. You are taking the general principle that people reason and trying to use that to justify your definition of reasoning, which doesn't follow.

Reasoning, as you call it, is just something that we do, we do it in any society from the cruelest dictatorship to the most open imaginable. Saying that your system is somehow based on reason and that others aren't is just a rhetorical flourish.

[pusher robot]

good luck trying to trace the causes withoutfinding human activity there. And at any rate humans can certainly stop these things happening, can't they?

That's really very silly. A human being on his own - say, on an island - who declines to work to preserve himself will be poor and starve, with absolutely no other human activity intervening.

Your definition of causality is the strange one, because you violating basic logical principles.

Let "P" be "a man shirking on a desert island."
Let "Q" be "a man shirking in a capitalist society."
Let "S" be "poverty and starvation."

Given:
P->S
Q->S

It does NOT follow that S->Q, which seems to be what you are arguing.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 03:42 pm

good luck trying to trace the causes withoutfinding human activity there. And at any rate humans can certainly stop these things happening, can't they?

That's really very silly. A human being on his own - say, on an island - who declines to work to preserve himself will be poor and starve, with absolutely no other human activity intervening.

Your definition of causality is the strange one, because you violating basic logical principles.

Let "P" be "a man shirking on a desert island."
Let "Q" be "a man shirking in a capitalist society."
Let "S" be "poverty and starvation."

Given:
P->S
Q->S

It does NOT follow that S->Q, which seems to be what you are arguing.
Am I saying that? I don't think so. I am saying that people can stop things live poverty and starvation from happening and therefore an not claim to have no responsibility when they happen.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+April 19, 2007 03:36 pm--> (Demogorgon @ April 19, 2007 03:36 pm)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 03:29 pm
Would you attempt to stop the lion from hunting, or the horse from running, or the eagle from soaring? My argument is that it is in man's nature to reason, and act upon the results of his reasoning. To deprive him of that it is cruelty.
But it is a meaningless statement, unless you get some specifics. You are taking the general principle that people reason and trying to use that to justify your definition of reasoning, which doesn't follow.

Reasoning, as you call it, is just something that we do, we do it in any society from the cruelest dictatorship to the most open imaginable. Saying that your system is somehow based on reason and that others aren't is just a rhetorical flourish. [/b]

But it is a meaningless statement, unless you get some specifics. You are taking the general principle that people reason and trying to use that to justify your definition of reasoning, which doesn't follow.

"Reasoning" in my usage consists of "applying one's knowledge, experience, and insight to the task of obtaining one's values."


Saying that your system is somehow based on reason and that others aren't is just a rhetorical flourish.
I don't believe that is so. A despot substitutes his reasoning for others by forcing his subjects to act in the way that HE determines is wise. In any meaningful sense, their ability to reason to their own benefit is deprived.

[pusher robot]

I am saying that people can stop things live poverty and starvation from happening and therefore an not claim to have no responsibility when they happen.

That is a much different statement than saying that not stopping something to happen is the cause of the thing that happens.

Of course, I still - based on my first principles - find the concept of holding people responsible for things they have no control over and no choice in the matter of is tyrannical.

Suppose that A, B, and C live in a communist community. A and B decide to have a child, a decision that C has no part in, which results in cost X. In fact, C thinks it is unwise, because C does not want to incur additional costs. Yet C is now held responsible for the actions of A and B - just as responsible as though he were A or B, if his share is X/3. You have just deprived C of his ability to benefit from his own powers of reason, by an amount equvalent to X/3, or whatever his share of the costs.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 05:29 pm
No, I intended by my statement to mean that it is the nature of each and every animal of the sub-type "Man" that his own ability to think is his only survival tool.
Then you are simply wrong in your assumptions. It is certainly false to say that the only thing a man needs to survive is the freedom to think and act as he pleases.

If you were abandoned on a desert island with no tools or clothes, would you be able to survive based on your ability to reason alone? Doubtful. Man is a social animal. A single human being, alone and without the benefit of tools made by other people, cannot survive in the wild.

It is not enough to have your own mind; in order to survive, you must also be able to communicate with other minds and work together with your bodies.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 03:50 pm
"Reasoning" in my usage consists of "applying one's knowledge, experience, and insight to the task of obtaining one's values."


Psychobabble. What are one's values and how do we go about obtaining them?
I don't believe that is so. A despot substitutes his reasoning for others by forcing his subjects to act in the way that HE determines is wise. In any meaningful sense, their ability to reason to their own benefit is deprived.No, their ability to act as they choose is curtailed. Their ability to reason is left untouched.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 03:56 pm
That is a much different statement than saying that not stopping something to happen is the cause of the thing that happens.

Of course, I still - based on my first principles - find the concept of holding people responsible for things they have no control over and no choice in the matter of is tyrannical.

Suppose that A, B, and C live in a communist community. A and B decide to have a child, a decision that C has no part in, which results in cost X. In fact, C thinks it is unwise, because C does not want to incur additional costs. Yet C is now held responsible for the actions of A and B - just as responsible as though he were A or B, if his share is X/3. You have just deprived C of his ability to benefit from his own powers of reason, by an amount equvalent to X/3, or whatever his share of the costs.
Holding someone responsible for something they have no control over is ridiculous, but nobody is suggesting that.

If you can stop something from happening and do not, you are part of the reason it happened, there is no getting around that.

And at any rate to claim that nobody is causing things like poverty and deprivation to happen is preposterous and shows what can only be called willfull ignorance of the world.

[pusher robot]

It is certainly false to say that the only thing a man needs to survive is the freedom to think and act as he pleases.

I never claimed that it was sufficient. But it IS necessary. Saying that a tool is necessary is not the same as claiming that the tool will always be useful, or even properly wielded. As a counterexample, a man could not survive even a tropical paradise if he unable or unwilling to use reason.


A single human being, alone and without the benefit of tools made by other people, cannot survive in the wild.

But that is clearly false. Many men have so lived, and many more are capable of so living. It is certainly not desirable for most, but it is possible.


No, their ability to act as they choose is curtailed. Their ability to reason is left untouched.

Of course. That is my point - their natural ability to reason is rendered utterly meaningless by their inability to apply the results of that reasoning to the achievement of their values. Your point is as asinine as claiming that free speech would not violated even if people were prohibited to listen to you, because after all, you can still physically speak!


Psychobabble. What are one's values and how do we go about obtaining them?

"Values" are the things that you work to obtain. For most, the primary value is life. Secondary values may include comfort, happiness, or the lives of others. Certain values are instinctual, and others are not. HOW to obtain them is precisely the POINT of reasoning. It is the only tool man has for figuring this out.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:05 pm


If you can stop something from happening and do not, you are part of the reason it happened, there is no getting around that.

That is not responsive to my hypothetical where C is held responsible for the choice of A and B - a choice he had no part in.

Or are you claiming that C is "part of the reason" for the birth of child of A and B because he didn't kill them or something?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 04:10 pm
Of course. That is my point - their natural ability to reason is rendered utterly meaningless by their inability to apply the results of that reasoning to the achievement of their values. Your point is as asinine as claiming that free speech would not violated even if people were prohibited to listen to you, because after all, you can still physically speak!

Ah, so a right or ability is meaningless unless we are able to get a practical aplication out of it? That is a concession I didn't expect to get out of you without more of a struggle.
"Values" are the things that you work to obtain. For most, the primary value is life. Secondary values may include comfort, happiness, or the lives of others. Certain values are instinctual, and others are not. HOW to obtain them is precisely the POINT of reasoning. It is the only tool man has for figuring this out.So we think about how to get what we want? Smashing. That doesn't really get us anywhere in terms of politics, does it?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 04:12 pm
That is not responsive to my hypothetical where C is held responsible for the choice of A and B - a choice he had no part in.

Or are you claiming that C is "part of the reason" for the birth of child of A and B because he didn't kill them or something?
Yes, but it is a silly analogy. That is called soldarity. C helps A and B and in turn A and B benefit C in other ways. We wouldn't ever get anywhere if we acted only in terms of our own interests.

[Tungsten]

They're not.


Indeed? Why is it the that you fiercely defend a system that allows people to suffer and starve then? Does that not fit under most people's definition of bad too?

Because allowing other people to starve is preferable to being enslaved to feed them.

Yet you always claim, that oh no, that is fine because it isn't being caused by what you refer to as initiating force.
True.

Now you will shout and scream and throw tantrums that these things are unavoidable and aren't being caused by humans, but good luck trying to trace the causes withoutfinding human activity there.
Good luck in finding the human activity that caused this starvation. No spurious causations, either, please.

And at any rate humans can certainly stop these things happening, can't they?
What you choose to stop is your choice. What other people choose to stop or not stop, is theirs.

Am I saying that? I don't think so.
Yes, you are.

I am saying that people can stop things live poverty and starvation from happening and therefore an not claim to have no responsibility when they happen.
Of couse they don't have any responsibility- unless they caused the starvation in the first place, which is highly unlikely.

If you can stop something from happening and do not, you are part of the reason it happened, there is no getting around that.
But am I responsible for it? No.

Yes, but it is a silly analogy. That is called soldarity. C helps A and B and in turn A and B benefit C in other ways. We wouldn't ever get anywhere if we acted only in terms of our own interests.
But the reality of it is a system where C is forced to help A and B regardless of whether A and B provide anything in return or not. Which is why it won't work.

pusher robot

A despot substitutes his reasoning for others by forcing his subjects to act in the way that HE determines is wise.
Reminds me of someone on this board. Correction- a lot of someones.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 04:30 pm
Because allowing other people to starve is preferable to being enslaved to feed them.


Oh the poor tragic life of Tungsten! The thought of having to do something to help the needy is slavery, SLAVERY!!!! Far better many die than he have to lift a finger to help, slavery I say!

Grow up



Yet you always claim, that oh no, that is fine because it isn't being caused by what you refer to as initiating force.
True.So it in fact is not about the effect. It is you deciding that (your defininition of) coercion, is much worse than anything of the same effect, because you say so Strong argument there.

At any rate the coercion arguent is always deeply amusing given the extreme level of coercion necessary to maintain capitalism.


Good luck in finding the human activity that caused this starvation. No spurious causations, either, please.Are you seriously contending there is no human activity involved? Perhaps God is making it happen? Through out history we see a clear pattern of brutality and exploitation perpetrated by the ruling classes on others. And it is really no different today. People starve in Africa as an after effect of colonialism and the backing of dictators, people are begging on the steets in China as a result of their facilities being sold off to the highest bidder etc

What you choose to stop is your choice. What other people choose to stop or not stop, is theirs.What an appealing picture of a world you paint, where you have no moral obligations. It is not a free choice whether we help someone in need or not. If we can we are morally obliged to do so. You raise (theoretical) choice up on a pedastal to make it seem as though it were the only important thing, even when the consequences of doing so are terrible. What is it that is making choice so much more important?

Of couse they don't have any responsibility- unless they caused the starvation in the first place, which is highly unlikely.Again why? If we did not show solidarity to one another, we would still be living in caves.

But the reality of it is a system where C is forced to help A and B regardless of whether A and B provide anything in return or not. Which is why it won't work.This is an odd thing capitalists like to claim. They and they alone will be responsible for all people under socialism and nobody else will have any responsibility. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Both parts of that apply.

[Tungsten]

Oh the poor tragic life of Tungsten! The thought of having to do something to help the needy is slavery, SLAVERY!!!!
Not the thought, the political coercion.

Far better many die than he have to lift a finger to help, slavery I say!
I'm glad you agree with me, seeing as you've given no counter argument. As I reminded our christian friend- slavery for a good cause is still slavery.

So it in fact is not about the effect. It is you deciding that (your defininition of) coercion, is much worse than anything of the same effect, because you say so Strong argument there.
Worse to who?

At any rate the coercion arguent is always deeply amusing given the extreme level of coercion necessary to maintain capitalism.
Oh the poor tragic life of Demogorgon. The thought of having to work for a living...etc.

Are you seriously contending there is no human activity involved? Perhaps God is making it happen?
That's amazing. I always thought most of the droughts and crop failiures in Africa were caused by the extreme weather conditions.

Through out history we see a clear pattern of brutality and exploitation perpetrated by the ruling classes on others. And it is really no different today. People starve in Africa as an after effect of colonialism and the backing of dictators,They were starving before colonialism and they're still starving post-colonialism.

people are begging on the steets in China as a result of their facilities being sold off to the highest bidder etc
They were starving before etc.

What an appealing picture of a world you paint, where you have no moral obligations. It is not a free choice whether we help someone in need or not. If we can we are morally obliged to do so.
Morally obliged by who? Let me guess...you? God?

[higgs629]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 19, 2007 12:22 am--> (Edric O @ April 19, 2007 12:22 am)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 12:53 am
My reasoning is inductive.

I start by noting that Man as an animal has one and only one survival advantage: his ability to reason. Thus, Man's ability to survive and thrive is predicated on his ability to think, and to act on the results of his thought.

[...]

Thus, we postulate a social environment that allows each individual as wide a latitude as possible for choosing the actions he believes are proper for himself...

Typical Randian non-sequitur. I added some emphasis to point out where you commit the fallacy. You start from a general statement that "Man" (by which I assume you mean Humanity, or Mankind) needs to think and reason in order to survive, then you say that each individual human being is required to think and reason independently in order to survive.

That does not follow. There is no reason why Humanity cannot do its thinking and reasoning as a collective, thus ensuring its collective survival. In fact, you start from a collective premise and then move to an individual conclusion with no justification whatsoever. [/b]
"Man" in his usuage does not mean humanity or mankind. He is using it in the way one would use "one". However, because comparing "one" to animals in this case would be ambiguos, man is used instead. There is no collective premise here. You may still argue of course that his conclusion is wrong but you are misinterpreting his premise.

PS. There is one reason why mankind cannot reason as a collective. There is no collective mind.

[higgs629]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 19, 2007 12:25 am
By the way, here is my logical primary for socialism and communism:

Human happiness is The Good. That which promotes human happiness is good; that which lowers human happiness is bad.

In other words, utilitarianism.
By what method does one sum human happiness and how did you arrive at the utilitarian ethical conclusion from metaphysical primaries, as that was the purpose of my question?

[higgs629]

Originally posted by [email protected]il 19, 2007 12:32 am


That does not follow. There is no reason why Humanity cannot do its thinking and reasoning as a collective, thus ensuring its collective survival. In fact, you start from a collective premise and then move to an individual conclusion with no justification whatsoever.
Excellent point. Although it is not the first fallacy I noticed in his post.
When you fellows are done congradulating yourselves perhaps you'll give thought to the problem?



I wonder if you agree that he has made an is/ought fallacy when he says peopl have a capacity to reason therefore there should have to be (his definition of) reason at every point? That's another Randian peace of nonsence.


One should supplant reason with what, faith, intuition? I assume reason at the beginning of the topic? If anyone really disagrees that there are methods superior to logic and reason then this is not the purpose of the topic.



Personally I am inclined to say, that yes humans are rather good at thinking, so we ought to think about how best to manage our resources and achieve the highest standard of living possible.


So how do you reach that ethical conclusion from metaphysical primaries?

[higgs629]

Originally posted by pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 08:29 am

You start from a general statement that "Man" (by which I assume you mean Humanity, or Mankind) needs to think and reason in order to survive, then you say that each individual human being is required to think and reason independently in order to survive.

No, I intended by my statement to mean that it is the nature of each and every animal of the sub-type "Man" that his own ability to think is his only survival tool. Each and every human being must think and reason independently because that is the only possible way that a human being can think and reason. There simply is no such thing as "collective reasoning," except as an aggregate if individual reasoning.


I wonder if you agree that he has made an is/ought fallacy when he says peopl have a capacity to reason therefore there should have to be (his definition of) reason at every point? That's another Randian peace of nonsence.

Would you attempt to stop the lion from hunting, or the horse from running, or the eagle from soaring? My argument is that it is in man's nature to reason, and act upon the results of his reasoning. To deprive him of that it is cruelty.
How do you reach the conclusion that it is man's nature to reason?

We can't simply claim that it is man's nature to be "x". Why is it man's nature to reason, and how do you conclude from man's nature that he has negative rights?

[higgs629]

Originally posted by Edric O+April 19, 2007 08:57 am--> (Edric O @ April 19, 2007 08:57 am)
pusher [email protected] 19, 2007 05:29 pm
No, I intended by my statement to mean that it is the nature of each and every animal of the sub-type "Man" that his own ability to think is his only survival tool.
Then you are simply wrong in your assumptions. It is certainly false to say that the only thing a man needs to survive is the freedom to think and act as he pleases.
[/b]
You got his point backwards, he is saying that the only tool available to man is his ability to reason, that is not the only value necessary to keep him alive.



If you were abandoned on a desert island with no tools or clothes, would you be able to survive based on your ability to reason alone? Doubtful. Man is a social animal. A single human being, alone and without the benefit of tools made by other people, cannot survive in the wild.


The point is that man would be unable to survive without using reason. Reason is a prerequiste to survival, and is the only way man is capable of achieving the values (food etc.) necessary to keep him alive.



It is not enough to have your own mind; in order to survive, you must also be able to communicate with other minds and work together with your bodies.


Untrue, a man alone, with reason is capable of surviving. A man using reason, can craft tools, hunt, and even pick berries. If he has no reasoning faculties, nothing will save him.

[higgs629]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 10:04 am
What an appealing picture of a world you paint, where you have no moral obligations.
You have totally and utterly missed the point of the topic. You are again applying an ethical conclusion without showing how it was derived from metaphysical primaries. At least the capitalists have tried, I don't know that their explanation was total, but they are at least providing one. Show how you have derived these ethical conclusions or admit that you are just taking them on faith!

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:43 pm
One should supplant reason with what, faith, intuition? I assume reason at the beginning of the topic? If anyone really disagrees that there are methods superior to logic and reason then this is not the purpose of the topic.


You can use reason sure, but saying that doesn't get us anywhere. If we can think, we are going to think no matter what. So it makes no sense to say it is an argument from capitalism
So how do you reach that ethical conclusion from metaphysical primaries?Wishing as I do, for my arguments to avoid being "nonsense on stilts" I tend to avoid metaphysics entirely when discussing ethics.

And Tungsten, congratulations on asking me the same set of questions that apply to your own "argument". You ask who determines our moral obligations, well that we will come to as soon as you satisfactorilly answer my question as to why your freedom to choose trumps everything else.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by higgs629+April 19, 2007 07:01 pm--> (higgs629 @ April 19, 2007 07:01 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 10:04 am
What an appealing picture of a world you paint, where you have no moral obligations.
You have totally and utterly missed the point of the topic. You are again applying an ethical conclusion without showing how it was derived from metaphysical primaries. At least the capitalists have tried, I don't know that their explanation was total, but they are at least providing one. Show how you have derived these ethical conclusions or admit that you are just taking them on faith! [/b]
Stop being so pretentious. How can a good argument for morality be rooted in metaphysics? It sounds to me like you are hoping I don't understand the term in the hope you will back off. Sadly for you, I do.

Morality is part of people. We naturally have a consciounce, presumably it existsas part of our survival mechanism, to get by in the wild. We naturally tend towards what we regard as good and back away from what we regard as bad. There are various things of course that will make us act in a bad manner, but sociopaths aside we do have that desire to do good.

As our morality is part of our survival basis, we can then conclude, what helps us as people survive is good for us, and indeed what makes us better off is good for us. Therefore what leads to human benefit is god and what leads to human suffering is bad. Hence we use utilitarianism as our moral basis. You have a oral duty to help someone in need because it helps alleviate human suffering and ad to human happiness.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 06:47 pm
We can't simply claim that it is man's nature to be "x". Why is it man's nature to reason, and how do you conclude from man's nature that he has negative rights?
I claim it is man's nature to reason because of my observations that it is his evolutionary imperative to do so. Just as the lion is "designed" to hunt and the bird to fly, so Man is "designed" to reason. It is self-evident that Man could not possibly have survived without reasoning. I can't, of course, claim that Man thinks by instinct - that would be an oxymoron - but it is apparent to me that the human brain is designed so as to WANT to reason. It rewards reasoning with happiness and with further reasoning ability.

This implies negative rights because one's reasoning cannot be actualized without a wide latitude to act on that reasoning. Negative rights represent the maxium latitude that a person can claim while simultaneously granting others the exact same latitude.

I suppose there is a hidden and unsupported premise that everyone ought to have the same amount of latitude. I guess I'd have to think on that one a bit. I could use the hoary old veil of ignorance, but I never found that convincing.