[ingliz]

I didn't impute ideas, marxist, libertarian, or otherwise into my arguments

OK, consider an ethic according to which there are no rights at all; everyone is morally free to coerce everyone else whenever he can get away with it, but many people succeed in defending themselves well enough so that they control much of their own time. According to their ethic they have no right to self-ownership, or anything else but they have physical control over themselves and are therefore able to make arguments. One might plausibly claim that this comes close to describing the world we now live in.

private ownership

One can think of lots of other systems of property rights that would work at least well enough to keep some people alive to argue philosophy.

So, why must we have self-owners and private property to argue?

[Victoribus Spolia]

OK, consider an ethic according to which there are no rights at all; everyone is morally free to coerce everyone else whenever he can get away with it, but many people succeed in defending themselves well enough so that they control much of their own time. According to their ethic they have no right to self-ownership, or anything else but they have physical control over themselves and are therefore able to make arguments. One might plausibly claim that this comes close to describing the world we now live in.

I don't get your point. This is just might-makes-right based on what we observe, its not an argument for anything, let alone a morality.

One can think of lots of other systems of property rights that would work at least well enough to keep some people alive to argue philosophy.

So, why must we have self-owners and private property to argue?

I have shown that the nature of argumentation presumes such as an undeniable logical right; that people refuse to respect these rights in others is irrational by definition.

What more are you asking for?

People act irrationally all the time, but it does not negate that there is a rational position.

Which is mine, in point of fact. In case you were wondering.

[ingliz]

I don't get your point.

Non-self-owners can argue.

You lose.

I have shown that the nature of argumentation presumes such as an undeniable logical right

Not to my satisfaction.

You lose.

[Truth To Power]

OK, consider an ethic according to which there are no rights at all; everyone is morally free to coerce everyone else whenever he can get away with it, but many people succeed in defending themselves well enough so that they control much of their own time. According to their ethic they have no right to self-ownership, or anything else but they have physical control over themselves and are therefore able to make arguments. One might plausibly claim that this comes close to describing the world we now live in.

No, it describes the world ANIMALS live in. People -- except sociopaths -- have morality.

One can think of lots of other systems of property rights that would work at least well enough to keep some people alive to argue philosophy.

We have property rights because they get the incentives right.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Non-self-owners can argue.

That doesn't follow at all from your example.

Argumentation presumes self-ownership necessarily, that people are having their rights violated is a completely different matter as to whether such exist in the first place, and so your example proves nothing against my claim.

Except that people are often irrational dickheads, which I never denied.

Not to my satisfaction.

Then by all means challenge it again so I can refute you again.

[Truth To Power]

I have shown that the nature of argumentation presumes such as an undeniable logical right; that people refuse to respect these rights in others is irrational by definition.

There is now an AI that can construct arguments based on independent research it conducts on moot questions. It obviously (to me at least) doesn't own itself. According to those who have seen it in action, it is a better arguer than most humans.

How do you get around that?

[ingliz]

Argumentation presumes self-ownership necessarily

No.

Only control; God owns the earth and all that is in it.

Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it.

Deuteronomy 10:14




By the way, it is odd seeing a professed Christian arguing atheism. If you accept argumentation ethics, God would be swept away to the Laplacian "I have no need for that hypothesis" territory - Those are high costs for the devout.

[Victoribus Spolia]

How do you get around that?

I don't.

If something is capable of actual argument, it is self-owning according to my definition.

However, if its just running on a program that is "If X is presented, say Y in response" It seems to me that its not really acting an agent, but as a proxy or a representative of its programmers thoughts. There is a distinction to be made there.

This issue regarding computer intelligence was brought up by John Searle in the Chinese room argument.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/chineser/

I also addressed this when @SolarCross brought up using the AI example and the KOKO gorilla example.

This was my response on that:

If a being is capable of meeting my criteria for argumentation, then my system would require they be assumed as having said rights. Full-Stop.

So, are A.I., and Gorillas that can communicate in sign-language, beings with rights under my argument? If they meet the criteria of argumentation wherein they can raise and dispute the truth or falsity of proposition, then yes. My argument would demand this conclusion.

Whether an A.I. is an independent agent, that is, not merely arguing on behalf of a person via a complicated program, but actually able to argue, and whether Koko's sophistication of communication is to such a level she could actually contend propositions, is something I simply do not have an answer on because I never argued with a KOKO or a Skynet.

Until then, I suspend judgment, but allow for the possibility as a hypothetical. My argument is what it is after all.

[Sivad]

[ingliz]

@Sivad

Not much of an argument for objective morality, is it?

He says, "I know what is right or wrong - if anyone disagrees, their knowledge is faulty (they are all "psychopaths", "colour blind", and " impaired") - so my beliefs are objectively true."


Reason for edits: For clarity, too many brackets and commas, but mainly because I can.

[Verv]

The only world in which you can really persuasively say there is an objective morality is one in which there is God.

Everyone else is simply arguing a relative system that is going to largely be based off of what is pragmatic and utilitarian. This isn't a "moral system" but really it's just the managerial state posing as a moral system.

This is really the very basis from which 'pressupositionalism' comes from. I used to think that this was a really bad way to argue about anything but, in reality, it makes a lot of sense, and it capitalizes very nicely off of the Greek notion that certain things are simply beyond logic.

[Sivad]

@Sivad

Not much of an argument for objective morality, is it?

Yeah, you haven't made a decent argument yet. It's obvious you know nothing about this.

[Victoribus Spolia]

This is really the very basis from which 'pressupositionalism' comes from.

I was trained in Presuppositionalism and the Transcendental Argument for God's existence.

Its refreshing to hear those sweet words again and on PoFo of all places; though, I would say that I have deviated somewhat from that system on a few points, but its hard to deny it in its totality. Pretty solid system actually and Dr. Bahnsen is my intellectual father really, if it wasn't for him I never would have entered into philosophical study.

[ingliz]

you haven't made a decent argument yet. It's obvious you know nothing about this

OK

I will use your killer argument.

"I know all moral propositions are false - if anyone disagrees, their knowledge is faulty (they are all "psychopaths", "colour blind", and " impaired") - so my beliefs are objectively true."

I win.

[Victoribus Spolia]

By the way, it is odd seeing a professed Christian arguing atheism. If you accept argumentation ethics, God would be swept away to the Laplacian "I have no need for that hypothesis" territory - Those are high costs for the devout.

Christians acknowledge that there is a natural law knowable even to the unbeliever, so that is what I am currently doing. I am showing those who are depraved that there are clearly objective moral standards. This natural law is clearly only in regards to second-table laws (pertaining to man's relation to other men), and I state in my argument that the context of this debate is only to discuss those laws as written on the heart.

There is no way you can argue for the rationality of blasphemy laws from plain reason. I fully admit that requires a belief in the existence of God and possibly even a faith in His revelation, but that is not the scope of this debate.

So I think you are being a bit duplicitous here. My ethic is about as close to representing the moral thinking that would exist in ancient theocratic and patriarchal societies as anything argued from plain reason has ever concluded. I am quite satisfied with this in point of fact.

Besides, its not like I haven't given a proof for the existence of God that I could run in tandem with this one, so its hard to take your critique seriously.

[Sivad]

OK

I will use your killer argument.

"I know all moral propositions are false - if anyone disagrees, their knowledge is faulty (they are all "psychopaths", "colour blind", and " impaired") - so my beliefs are objectively true."

I win.

First, that's not the argument. Second, that's not a defeater for a properly basic belief. Finally, your moral nihilism is inferred so it's not a properly basic belief. You should go read some meta-ethics before forming a strong opinion on the nature of morality.

[SolarCross]

No.

Only control; God owns the earth and all that is in it.

Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it.

Deuteronomy 10:14

Control is virtually synonymous with ownership. Ownership in contrast to control carries with it a sense of rightfulness, otherwise they are completely synonymous. If you own, you control if you control, you own.

Also ownership can be layered. Think of land ownership, at the lowest level there is guest rights, higher than that tenant rights, higher than that freeholders and highest still the eminent domain of the reigning military power. When it comes to flesh not land, then perhaps we can think of VS's god as having something like eminent domain while the freeman as a subject of god is a freeholder. So the existence of a God to whom belongs the whole universe in no way contradicts the possibility of a freeman owning himself, because ownership can be layered.

[Sivad]

those who are depraved

total depravity!

[Victoribus Spolia]

total depravity!

I am a Lutheran and former Calvinist. So yes, but if my faith didn't already tell me this, folks on PoFo would convince me of it nonetheless, especially the views of guys like Ingliz.

When it comes to flesh not land, then perhaps we can think of VS's god as having something like eminent domain while the freeman as a subject of god is a freeholder. So the existence of a God to whom belongs the whole universe in no way contradicts the possibility of a freeman owning himself, because ownership can be layered.

That would be pretty close to my position in all reality, but we have discussed this at length in other places.

[Verv]

@Victoribus Spolia,

I was trained in Presuppositionalism and the Transcendental Argument for God's existence.

Its refreshing to hear those sweet words again and on PoFo of all places; though, I would say that I have deviated somewhat from that system on a few points, but its hard to deny it in its totality. Pretty solid system actually and Dr. Bahnsen is my intellectual father really, if it wasn't for him I never would have entered into philosophical study.

I really do mean to sit down and read about it.

I have to say that Presuppositionalism is the least understood and most maligned approach to these things. I think it suffers from the fact that we live in this era of "I learn everything I need to know about world news from 280 character Tweets." They think the same can apply to dynamic thought processes. It just can't.