[Victoribus Spolia]

Perhaps my argument is too subtle for you.

You have made several arguments actually, and every one has been refuted, the latest one you have been pressing the most was based on the false accusation that I argued directly from the axiom of argumentation to all would-be arguers that such had the right of self-ownership. That was plainly false.

You also just argued that something other than a proposition can be true, which is obviously horseshit as well.

Now you repeat this:

I have shown "a mutual recognition of each person's exclusive control over his own body" is not necessary for argumentation to occur.

No you haven't. If you have presented something I did not respond to, by all means re-post it.

However, I have demonstrated modus ponens the truth of that very claim.

If you wish to press the claim that the mutual presumption of self-ownership is not necessarily presupposed by the axiom of argumentation, then please go ahead and attempt to argue your case without being an arguer.

"P" is false.

Your argument fails.

You lose.

Please attempt to argue against the axiom of argumentation (P).

PLEASE.

Then your embarrassment will be complete.

[ingliz]

If P is true, Q is true

You offer an analysis of argumentation according to which a necessary condition for argumentation to occur is that a specific moral proposition, q, is true. You identify q as the principle that each person has the moral right to exclusive control over his own body.

Further, you contend that the activity of argument is impossible unless its participants recognise that each has the right to exclusive control over his own body.

To counter this I have shown an example of participants arguing who do not recognise that each has the right to exclusive control over his own body.

For example, an error theorist thinks that all moral propositions are false (and thus that the supposed norm is false) because moral propositions ascribe moral properties to things and things do not have moral properties. The error theorist nevertheless often behaves as if specific moral principles are true. In particular, when arguing, he will behave as if it is true that he ought to treat his interlocutors as if they had the liberty to argue, but he will not recognise this norm as true - he may regard it simply as a useful fiction (Arguments invoking mutual recognition are crap because whatever can be explained by an agent’s recognition of another’s moral status can equally well be explained by the agent’s pretending that the other has that moral status in order to interact with him in a way that serves the agent’s purpose).

Of course, in order to show an argument to be invalid, an intended counter-example to it must describe a possible situation. We can add that a situation that seems to us to be possible might not really be so, since its description may involve a latent contradiction. However, my example does appear to be self-consistent, given the meaning of the terms employed. If it involves a latent contradiction, that needs to be shown. Your argument does not show it.

It would be arbitrary and dogmatic to insist that counter-examples must involve a latent contradiction simply because they invalidate your argument.


p.s.

Only propositions can be true or false

'Self-evident truths' are propositions that are accepted without demonstration.

[RhetoricThug]

^We're hardwired for pro-social behavior. Morality is an autonomic neurobiological complex. What's RIGHT and what's WRONG depends upon societal concern and what WORKS and what DOESN'T WORK for social evolution/civilized progress. A functional civil society operates under a system of objective morality. Law reflects a system of objective morality and a system of objective morality reflects the intuitive moral compass found in human nature. Natural law is a common-sense or universal declaration of human rights that protects us from man-made law.

I highly recommend reading:

Cognition and Consensus in the Natural Law Tradition and in Neuroscience: Jacques Maritain and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Excerpt
Maritain's description of natural law is an effort to ground universal condemnation of evil morally by emphasizing the values most human beings share in common, while at the same time keeping the concept vague enough to avoid getting into specifics that may divide us. Natural law goes beyond "thou shalt not commit murder," but it is not often concerned with specific details relevant to a time or place. For Maritain, natural law is not merely a rational reflection on experience, but rather a moral intelligence. The new science of moral sense operates on "the hypothesis that human beings possess a common moral nature, rich enough to provide the foundation of a system of human rights and obligations."

https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.ed ... ontext=vlr


The Neurobiology of Moral Behavior: Review and Neuropsychiatric Implications

Morality may be innate to the human brain. This review examines the neurobiological evidence from research involving functional magnetic resonance imaging of normal subjects, developmental sociopathy, acquired sociopathy from brain lesions, and frontotemporal dementia. These studies indicate a “neuromoral” network for responding to moral dilemmas centered in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and its connections, particularly on the right. The neurobiological evidence indicates the existence of automatic “prosocial” mechanisms for identification with others that are part of the moral brain. Patients with disorders involving this moral network have attenuated emotional reactions to the possibility of harming others and may perform sociopathic acts. The existence of this neuromoral system has major clinical implications for the management of patients with dysmoral behavior from brain disorders and for forensic neuropsychiatry.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/

[Victoribus Spolia]

You offer an analysis of argumentation according to which a necessary condition for argumentation to occur is that a specific moral proposition, q, is true. You identify q as the principle that each person has the moral right to exclusive control over his own body.

Further, you contend that the activity of argument is impossible unless its participants recognise that each has the right to exclusive control over his own body.

To counter this I have shown an example of participants arguing who do not recognise that each has the right to exclusive control over his own body.

ingliz wrote:
For example, an error theorist thinks that all moral propositions are false (and thus that the supposed norm is false) because moral propositions ascribe moral properties to things and things do not have moral properties. The error theorist nevertheless often behaves as if specific moral principles are true. In particular, when arguing, he will behave as if it is true that he ought to treat his interlocutors as if they had the liberty to argue, but he will not recognise this norm as true - he may regard it simply as a useful fiction (Arguments invoking mutual recognition are crap because whatever can be explained by an agent’s recognition of another’s moral status can equally well be explained by the agent’s pretending that the other has that moral status in order to interact with him in a way that serves the agent’s purpose).

Of course, in order to show an argument to be invalid, an intended counter-example to it must describe a possible situation. We can add that a situation that seems to us to be possible might not really be so, since its description may involve a latent contradiction. However, my example does appear to be self-consistent, given the meaning of the terms employed. If it involves a latent contradiction, that needs to be shown. Your argument does not show it.

It would be arbitrary and dogmatic to insist that counter-examples must involve a latent contradiction simply because they invalidate your argument.

I addressed the above already in stating how the whole "pretending" example of yours is nonsense as you cannot pretend to recognize something that you have no choice but to recognize (which i further demonstrated via modus ponens)

Now, in the event you are simply confused, I will narrow in on certain terms you are using.

The term of concern is "recognize" You seem to be using this phrase as if a choice were involved, and hence a person engaged in argumentation can only "pretend" to recognize someone's self-ownership. If this is your understanding, you are grossly mistaken.

The mutual-recognition of self-ownership cannot be denied as it is assumed in the very act of arguing itself, it cannot be denied without contradiction; hence it makes no sense to say that a person can actually deny it and therefore only pretend to recognize someone else's self-ownership.

This is because self-ownership can never be denied in argumentation, it is a necessary presumption to it. Thus, you cannot pretend to believe something that you cannot deny anyway. That would be like saying: "I am only pretending to have my heart beat in my chest." Its an absurdity because the reality cannot be denied even upon you shaking off your "pretending."

In essence, the reality of The-Necessary-Presumption-Of-Mutual-Self-Ownership in the course of argumentation, is not up to you, so you cannot secretly deny it and pretend to acknowledge it. This is because you cannot deny it in secret, and you cannot deny it in secret because its logically undeniable given the axiom.

Thus your "counter-example" is erroneous, for your "error-theorist" cannot pretend to do something he cannot deny anyway. He cannot pretend to recognize what he cannot help but recognize.

Whether he chooses to respect that undeniable logical right, is an entirely different matter altogether.

'Self-evident truths' are propositions that are accepted without demonstration.

As long as they are propositions, which are always either true or false (being in the declaratory tone), they are such that can be contended in an argument.

Thus, anything that is said to be true, must be a proposition, and if it is a proposition, its truth or falsity can only be contended and or settled in the midst of an argument.

You cannot possibly communicate a counter-example, for even axioms are in propositional form and their truth is demonstrated in that they are presented in a debate and all counter-claims against them assume their truth.

[ingliz]

In essence, the reality of The-Necessary-Presumption-Of-Mutual-Self-Ownership in the course of argumentation, is not up to you,

Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse. (Habermas 1990)

A. The Presupposition of Private Ownership by Original Appropriation.

If no one had the right to acquire and control (own) anything except his own body (the self-ownership of which has been demonstrated above); then all actual persons would cease to exist and the problem of human morality simply would not exist (as no legitimate acquisition could be made). Thus, the inherent right to control/own resources outside oneself via appropriation must be presumed. Thus, given this argument to the contrary, private ownership and what might be called original appropriation is directly inferred from the corollary-axiom of human argumentation.

Another 'ought' from 'is' (private ownership), and another invalid argument.

private ownership

To counter this I can show as an example, the Huaorani Indians of the Ecuadorian Amazon who possess a long-standing common property management regime.

You lose.

[My arguments] instead of being a mere observed behavior in man, are actually inferred from certain axioms that cannot be denied by any agent.... He cannot pretend to recognize what he cannot help but recognize.

A bunch of die-hard Star Trek fans go to a convention. They’re all dressed up, and mingling among themselves about how awesome the show is. Then someone takes out a booth at the convention and gives a presentation for all the attendees entitled, “WHY THE VERY ACT OF TURNING ON THE TELEVISION PROVES STAR TREK IS BETTER SCIENCE FICTION THAN STAR WARS.”

A guy in the crowd says afterwards, “Huh, I don’t see how that followed at all.”

Then another guy in the crowd – who thought the presentation was amazing – says, “That’s just bizarre. You’re here, dressed as Spock. How can you not like that presentation?”

[Victoribus Spolia]

Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse. (Habermas 1990)

Argumentum Ad Populum.

Another 'ought' from 'is' (private ownership), and another invalid argument.

False. Not even close, how was my conclusion based on anything I observed empirically? Please support your claim, otherwise I don't even know where you could get this wild idea.

I used an argumentum a contrario to demonstrate a reductio ad absurdem in the antithesis of my position.

All perfectly sound reasoning.

To counter this I can show as an example, the Huaorani Indians of the Ecuadorian Amazon who possess a long-standing common property management regime.

You lose.

I don't know the context to what you are referring, so none of this make sense, but assuming you are trying to counter my claim that private property is a logically derivable (and undeniable) right from an example of indians being crypto-commies, let me just say that I am not impressed.

Trying to infer a moral position on the basis of observing savagery in others is an actual example of the naturalistic fallacy, and ultimately a red herring anyway. The truth of my position is not dependent on historical examples of people acting consistently with what reason demands.

I win.

A bunch of die-hard Star Trek fans go to a convention. They’re all dressed up, and mingling among themselves about how awesome the show is. Then someone takes out a booth at the convention and gives a presentation for all the attendees entitled, “WHY THE VERY ACT OF TURNING ON THE TELEVISION PROVES STAR TREK IS BETTER SCIENCE FICTION THAN STAR WARS.”

A guy in the crowd says afterwards, “Huh, I don’t see how that followed at all.”

Then another guy in the crowd – who thought the presentation was amazing – says, “That’s just bizarre. You’re here, dressed as Spock. How can you not like that presentation?”

Humorous, but irrelevant.

Stars Wars is way better anyway.

[ingliz]

how was my conclusion based on anything I observed empirically?

You observed a capitalist economy in the little piece of the world that surrounds you.

I win

The necessity of private ownership cannot be derived from "the inherent right to control/own resources outside oneself via appropriation".

You lose

[Victoribus Spolia]

You observed a capitalist economy in the little piece of the world that surrounds you.

I never argued such, so this is either a presumption you have imputed or an ad-hominem.

The necessity of private ownership cannot be derived from "the inherent right to control/own resources outside oneself via appropriation".

You lose

Except I did so.

[ingliz]

Except I did so.

No, you did not.

You failed to bridge the gap between the argument which supports the existence of property in general and your support of a specific system of property entitlements, private ownership.

You lose.

[Victoribus Spolia]

No, you did not.

You failed to bridge the gap between the argument which supports the existence of property in general from argument which supports the existence of a system of a specific kind, private ownership.

Present your objection/argument and I will respond to it.

Otherwise I can only guess as to your accusation.

Otherwise, I have no reason but to assume you have nothing to offer against that aspect of my argument.

[ingliz]

the inherent right to control/own resources outside oneself via appropriation must be presumed<-----------------------------> Thus, given this argument to the contrary, private ownership...

Mind the gap.

[SolarCross]

You failed to bridge the gap between the argument which supports the existence of property in general and your support of a specific system of property entitlements, private ownership.

The qualifier "private" came into being when the Romans invented "public" ownership with their concept of a republic. Until then all property was "private" because until there was a "public" there needn't exist a qualifier to distinguish it from public property. Publics are just aggregates of individuals, if individuals can't own things then how can publics? The public is built out of the individuals, its rights must flow from the individual's rights.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Mind the gap.

I don't see a gap, do explain yourself.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@SolarCross,

Well said.

Communists assume the values of individual rights in their attempt to usurp them, as your post clearly demonstrates.

[ingliz]

explain yourself.

... the inherent right to control/own resources outside oneself via appropriation must be presumed. <-----------------------------> Thus, given this argument to the contrary, private ownership..

You failed to bridge the gap between the argument which supports the existence of property in general and your support of a specific system of property entitlements, private ownership.

Also

The state decides which entitlements to confer on an individual in any given case. There is no prior concept of property determining its bounds.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You failed to bridge the gap between the argument which supports the existence of property in general and your support of a specific system of property entitlements, private ownership.

I don't believe in state entitlements, so I reject your understanding (marxist) of private ownership. Private ownership is not based on entitlement or state protection/acknowledgement, so you assume what has yet to be proven and impute your own unproven assumptions onto my argument.

To retain what you appropriate privately (which I demonstrated) IS the right of private ownership. There is no gap because there is no distinction.

The right of private appropriation being logically undeniable is what establishes private property.

That this property has often been protected by states, is irrelevant and I would actually argue such as inconsistent with the logical right of private property.

The state decides which entitlements to confer on an individual in any given case. There is no prior concept of property determining its bounds.

False, logic demands the right of appropriation (which I proved), thus logic has shown the origin of private property. This distinction between unclaimed and claimed is a separate matter, but given what has been shown regarding appropriation, it seems that Locke's answer to that question would be sufficient: The input of labor in the work of appropriation in constancy with the claim itself.

[SolarCross]

Well said.

Communists assume the values of individual rights in their attempt to usurp them, as your post clearly demonstrates.

They are the most profound misanthropists that there has ever been, they don't love the concept of the republic because they fear tyranny as did the Romans as that would be rather at odds with their grovelling worship of the most odious mass-murdering tyrants history has ever known eg. Lenin, Stalin and Mao, they love it because they can pretend it is a non-human being, something a bit like an infernal god. To their mind no humans are worthy of the status of owner only infernal non-humans should have that privilege.

[Victoribus Spolia]

They are the most profound misanthropists that there has ever been, they don't love the concept of the republic because they fear tyranny as did the Romans as that would be rather at odds with their grovelling worship of the most odious mass-murdering tyrants history has ever known eg. Lenin, Stalin and Mao, they love it because they can pretend it is a non-human being, something a bit like an infernal god. To their mind no humans are worthy of the status of owner only infernal non-humans should have that privilege.

Its definitely satanic.

[ingliz]

That this property has often been protected by states, is irrelevant and I would actually argue such as inconsistent with the logical right of private property.

Incoherent babble!

Your argument amounts to nothing more than, “First, let’s stipulate that libertarianism is right. Now, I can show you that anybody who denies libertarianism is wrong…”

[Victoribus Spolia]

Incoherent babble!

Your argument amounts to nothing more than, “First, let’s stipulate that libertarianism is right. Now, I can show you that anybody who denies libertarianism is wrong…”

Actually I started from an undeniable axiom and inferred the position that I did.

I didn't impute ideas, marxist, libertarian, or otherwise into my arguments. You are doing that, not me.

If you believe I have engaged in petito principii or begging the question in my original debate post, please show me where I did so.

Thanks.