B0ycey wrote:VS will claim he doesn't understand you now @ingliz. He does that when his arguments unravel.
Please show me where my arguments are unraveling.
Also, when I say I don't understand what your saying, i ask you to clarify, if you can't, that tells me you never knew what you were talking about in the first place.
A common problem for you.
ingliz wrote:My belief system is just coherent as yours. All that is needed for coherence is that a statement or proposition must be consistent with a suitably defined body of other propositions, and this body needs to be consistent within itself (Mine are).
If my premises and conclusions are invalid, so are your's.
Your Truth is no more a truth than mine.
Lets put it to the test.
Present your argument for the contrasting moral system, and I will refute it.
ingliz wrote: logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense
Would you say this statement is true? absolutely?
SolarCross wrote:1. We cannot safely derive a universal assumption from instances of argument alone because too many self-owning entities do not necessarily make anything resembling arguments in their entire lives. Action serves better in this regard.
If a being is not capable of any meaningful communication whatsoever in the establishing of a proposition as either true or false, then they cannot be regarded as having self-ownership in any meaningful sense
per my definitions.
Action is not sufficient because even bacteria act, but that understanding is not likely compatible with your definition of self-will and self-power as a criteria, hence you have incompatible standards, this is besides the fact that regarding all acting-agents as having self-ownership would imply absurd conclusions, which it surely would.
SolarCross wrote:2. Moreover while it might be said that argumentation implies a mutual recognition of the fact of self-ownership for those parties in dispute, nothing can be said regarding the right to self-ownership for any party to the debate from this. And it is a right to self-ownership not the fact of self-ownership that you want to prove.
Depends on what you mean by rights, if you mean a guarantee that no one will violate your right to X, well then there is no such thing as rights at all under any system of rights, no one claims under any school of rights that they cannot be violated by others who disregard them, if you think that is what I am arguing, you are gravely mistaken.
The standard my opponent agreed to in the debate was logic as universal and objective; hence, if moral principles could be established as logically derived, and therefore both universal and objective, then he must agree to accept them.
That is all I aimed to demonstrate regarding "rights," their existence as logical realities, the violation of which would be, by definition, an act of irrationality. Once again, this does not mean people won't violate your self-ownership, appropriation, private property, etc., only that a person's claim to such rights is rationally beyond contest. That is all that I intend to demonstrate.
You also make this claim again here:
SolarCross wrote:You are making unsafe generalisations again because there are some arguments you can win exactly through violence. If I made the proposition that I am immortal then by killing me you have exactly proven my proposition to be incorrect. So far all you have done is prove that the fact of self-ownership not the right to self-ownership may be demonstrated in certain instances. That the fact of self-ownership can be negated through violence is relevant counter argument to the implied claim that the fact of self-ownership is universal. If you were to engage in argument with a thoroughly broken in slave you could not take his counter arguments as evidence of the fact of his self-ownership.
As I said above, if you are using "rights" to mean something that no one can violate, then you are saying something that no one who has ever advocated for in any theory of rights,
ever. Having a right does not magically grant you invincibility, they can be violated. The universal and objective nature is what makes them inalienable, but inalienability is not the same as inviolability (as long as by inviolability, we mean someone can deprive you of exercising what is rationally inalienable), which is where you seem to be confused.
So what are rights and how are they distinguished from natural facts (like your might-makes-right theory)?
Reason demands that people have certain logically deducible rights; to life, liberty, and property. These rationally inferred principles are not what we see in nature (might makes right), hence they cannot be merely stated as "empirical facts," hence what do we call them if not facts? We call them
rights.My argument's conclusion is what makes a right a right versus a fact of observed human activity.
This will also serve as an answer to your duel example, which operates under the same lack of distinction.
However, as it stands, you have already conceded in this post and in others that the logic of necessarily presuming self-ownership is not something you can deny. Since that is all I claimed to prove, and that such a logical truth is to be dsitinguished from the fact of might-makes-right, I think it would be best for you to just concede this (which you basically did already), so you can move on and test my inferences for original appropriation, NAP, and private property (and thus Anarcho-Capitalism) from self-ownership.
We've discussed this enough, I want to see you critique my other inferences from self-ownership so I can assess their actual strength as well.
SolarCross wrote:Perhaps though an assumptions relevance to reality depends upon it being observable in reality. In platonic space a sguirgly might be said to have the property of furgly and we could derive some pretty inferences from that but its relevance to real space would be zero.
If they are established as undeniable logical truths that are universally applicable to all mankind, you can't get much more relevant than that.
SolarCross wrote:It is fallacious to infer rights from recognition of possession. It is also unsafe to derive universals from specific instances.
I have done neither.
SolarCross wrote:Initially I only looked at your first section of your first post, the part attempting to derive the right to self-ownership from argumentation ethics, and so far that is all we have been discussing. I have now read the rest of your argument and I am sorry to say section 1 on argumentation ethics was the strongest part. Would you like me to fully stand in for @Potemkin and discuss the rest of your propositions?
I suppose you are referring to the Pronatalist Master Argument?
I actually think section 2 is my strongest as I am most familiar and well-seasoned in its use. I have debated it with others many times in many places with satisfying success (it has also been the cause for me getting the most censure in academic institutions, forums, etc., because of its "offensive" conclusions
)
I have even debated it on this forum, but I don't think we (you and I) have ever debated it as of yet.
So sure! Lets go for it.
Give me your best shot, this is my baby (no pun intended) as its an argument that I uniquely developed, not based on any formal argument given by anyone else (though it was influenced by the ideas of certain Theologians).
[Though technically my arguments in both threads are all sorta my own creation even if based on the works on others. You should debate my argument for
Trinitarian Phenomenal Idealism as well when you get the chance.]
I LOVE debating this stuff.
Thanks for indulging me.