And you guys thought *I* was nuts.

[CKay]

he has made various unprovable, conflicting assertions:

That they have yet to be demonstrated proven does not mean that they are unprovable.

But rather than presenting your theories as assertions - I believe that ...- you present them as self evident facts - it is obvious that blah blah is the case...

Can you prove Fermat's last theorem?

A poor analogy:

1.Philosophical problems aren't susceptible to proof in the way that mathematical problems are.

2. Following from the above, you can neither prove your theory nor disprove any contrary theory.

3. Fermat:Mathematics != You:Philosophy

[CKay]

• A human zygote possesses essential human personage and should thus be accorded the same rights as for any person (an essentialist argument).

The thread of a human life begins at conception .... A basic human only requires a basic right; The right to live.

Hmm, yeah but note my use of the word personage.

You believe* that a zygote possesses essential human personage. This is an essentialist position (essence comes before existence).

I believe* that a zygote does not possess human personage. A person is something that a zygote becomes. This is an existentialist position (existence comes before essence).

*Note: we are both expressing beliefs - neither of which can be proven either way.

[CKay]

Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

Complete nonsense. Tools have utility. Tools are not living things.

[CKay]

It serves no purpose in species survival.

Hmm, you are assuming that species survival, the passing on of genetic information, evolution and so on has purpose.

Whereas I see no reason to assume a purpose here. Rather, evolution is a cold, deterministic process that has no necessary purpose. It just is.

A river does not exist for the purpose of transferring water downhill.

And of course assigning purpose and utility to evolution would strongly imply intelligent design.

[CKay]

Ayn Rand

Haha!

Yep, Ayn Rand's 'objectivism' often crops up as an example of a moral system based upon an unfounded assertion and which thus fails to account for the is-ought problem (... and that's how you've just come across her isn't it - reading up on the is-ought problem?).

Interesting Rand factoid - she spent most of her life denouncing the welfare state... but then happily accepted social security and Medicare when she got old, poor and sick.

In her younger days she managed to attract a committed circle of fans (Alan Greenspan was one), but when it became obvious that she was an unhinged, self-serving, sociopath, they abandoned her.

I can see why you would find her appealing.

[CKay]

Oh and Diogenes, your belief that survival of the fittest is the ultimate moral purpose sounds a lot like eugenics.

Lovely.

[Teahive]

There is nothing in current law resembling a clear line. It is RIFE with contradiction and assumption.

And I'm not arguing in favor of current law.

I disagree. It is my belief that a Universal morality exists and can be objectively defined. Evolution, in fact, has created such a thing, and it is normally imparted by instinct. We have just yet to recognize and codify it completely.

Some aspects are obvious. "Thou shalt not Murder", "Though shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not bear false witness", etc.

As it is contrary to the passing on of genes from members of a species which kills it's offspring, evolution will eventually correct this problem, and thereby once again assert a Universal morality.

Those that pleasure themselves by creating children and then abjure their responsibility by killing their own offspring will eventually cull themselves from the gene pool in favor of those who do not.

The trait will become less likely to be passed on, unless it has some undiscerned offsetting propagational benefit that comes with it.

You are confusing moral acceptance of abortion with performing the act, as if humanity would somehow descend to killing all babies. A society that allows abortion can still have an abortion rate near zero.

Furthermore, you seem to assume that the stance towards abortion is a trait that is passed on (genetically?). But if that were the case, how did the pro-choice sentiment spread in the first place? As an idea that spreads, it might continue to outpace population growth in such a way that cultures which ban abortion today may grow but at the same time become increasingly tolerant towards abortion.

And it's entirely possible that allowing abortion has offsetting benefits. It could be that it leads to more pregnancies in the first place because sex is perceived as less risky. It could be that women who abort unwanted pregnancies have more children later, while those with an unwanted child don't. It could be that unwanted children are less likely to have children themselves. It could even be that unwanted children are more likely to become murderers.

Subjective laws defined by subjective opinion are not a good basis for justice or stability. The founders believed in "natural law" and employed it in the construction of our nation's government. Where we have deviated from it there have been consequences that have proven to be severe. (Slavery/Civil war)

Again, laws should follow natural boundaries because once established they have a natural resting place and are not so easily moved by whim.

Laws should follow moral boundaries. If those don't happen to coincide with "natural boundaries", tough.

What utter nonsense! There are few people indeed that are unaware that conception is a consequence of having sex, and anyone so stupid as to not take precautions is very much committing a deliberate act in the sense that their activity has a very high probability of resulting in a conception.

I wouldn't call it "very high". Anyway, why do you assume pregnancy equals not taking precautions?

One would think anyone growing up on planet earth would be aware of the endless examples of previous unwanted pregnancies. With 42 million abortions per year, one would think no further examples or proof ought be necessary.

Where does the linked page refer to failure to take precautions?

[*]The purpose of a moral system is in ensuring that the genes of its adherents are passed on (so the morality of an action is down to whether it aids the transfer of genetic material - this a special case of utilitarian argument).

Not just transfer, but to provide the intermediate protection of it as well. It does no good to transfer material that does not in turn transfer material. Raising children to die without offspring is pointless. It serves no purpose in species survival.

Morality serves no purpose to inanimate objects. Of course it is utilitarian. Only living creatures can exert will. Usefulness, purpose, or utility are characteristics only of living things.

So if someome defined their purpose as something other than ensuring species survival, why should they agree that raising children which produce no further offspring is pointless?

Greatest happiness for greatest number is suspect, as nicely illustrated by Huxley's Brave New World, where a drugged-up population is enslaved but happy. But this is merely "greatest fertility for greatest number!"

Happiness is not a purpose, but a condition of functionality. Survival is the purpose. Also, in the example you provided, the happiness only exists as an illusion, and is the consequence of artificial tampering. It isn't actual happiness.

Back to the naturalistic fallacy. If "natural" means "in the absence of external interference", then artificial tampering is the presence of external interference. So happiness derived from the presence or actions of other people is the consequence of artificial tampering, and therefore not actual happiness...

Survival is the purpose of what? Do you believe a species is a living creature in itself? And if so, what makes you think that we, merely being its cells, are able to discern its will?

[CKay]

It is my belief that a Universal morality exists and can be objectively defined... Some aspects are obvious... "Though shalt not steal"

Well the Spartans didn't think it was obvious. They encouraged their children to steal because it demonstrated cunning. Those who were caught were severely punished - but the punishment was for getting caught, not for stealing.

And this nicely illustrates the fundamental flaw in the notion that we can discern objective rules for morality from observation. Moral beliefs change quite radically from culture to culture, or at different times through recorded history, to such an extent that the morals of one society may flatly contradict those of another. Thus the evidence seems to suggest that morality is inherently subjective rather than objective.

[williatw]

It is my belief that a Universal morality exists and can be objectively defined... Some aspects are obvious... "Though shalt not steal"

Well the Spartans didn't think it was obvious. They encouraged their children to steal because it demonstrated cunning. Those who were caught were severely punished - but the punishment was for getting caught, not for stealing.

And this nicely illustrates the fundamental flaw in the notion that we can discern objective rules for morality from observation. Moral beliefs change quite radically from culture to culture, or at different times through recorded history, to such an extent that the morals of one society may flatly contradict those of another. Thus the evidence seems to suggest that morality is inherently subjective rather than objective.

Of course the Spartans were conquered eventually and are extinct, most of their beliefs like the afore mentioned stealing (and of course rampant Pederasty) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_ ... ent_Greece didn't die with them exactly but both of them particularly the later are not held in high esteem by the overwhelming majority of surviving cultures. That is the other part, I can believe whatever I want is "moral" to be sure, but practices based on my beliefs don't have to work in terms of survival. They change over time because the underlying reality changes over time. It is impossible to prove "subjectively" at what point we should decide a fetus is a human being. You might observe however that the end result of abortion on demand paid for by the state under any circumstances, birth control, pornography, encouraging promiscuity, etc lead to a collapse of the birth rate(at least among those who are productive members of society). The end result you fall well below replacement rate, are forced to import more and more immigrants to prevent societal collapse. Of course natural selection is going to favor those who successfully reproduce, that is who manage to produce viable offspring. The ancient Greeks were free to believe that a grown man "buggering" a 5yr old child was the height of fashion, doesn't mean it will work out for them as far as ultimate survival long term. You or I can believe whatever we please but ultimately nature(God) casts the deciding vote.

[CKay]

Of course the Spartans were conquered eventually and our extinct

As far as my point goes - that moral standards across different cultures and points in history are not consistent, so Diogenes' theory of universal morality is problematic - it matters not that their moral system died out.

If you're trying to argue that there's a tendency for moral systems to evolve towards and converge upon one perfection, well the evidence just doesn't support your case. Right now there are moral systems that exist in different parts of the world - or even amongst different segments of the same society - that contradict one another.

Consider the (bat-shit insane) followers of Diogenes' favourite new philosopher, Ayn Rand, who believe selfishness to be the highest virtue and altruism a moral evil. Many people would consider that the absolute antithesis of their own strongly held moral beliefs.

[Diogenes]

Actually, I think diogenes's moral stance is less confusing than he makes it seem.

He wants the balance between individual freedom and security to be 100% on the freedom side, so that individual rights of action must be unfettered by anything except an absolute prohibition on individual killing (since death is the ultimate lack of freedom).

He then interprets "individual" in the broadest possible species-specific way.

The complexity comes from the fact that this is clearly a variant of "might is right" but diogenes can't quite bring himself to say this and tries to find some nobler justification.

The ability to enforce your will does not make you factually correct. I argue on this topic quite extensively elsewhere, most notably in regards to incorrectly decided court rulings.

As for whether or not someone is "right", one can only analyze the success or failure of an idea if one has a notion as to what is the ultimate purpose for it.

This version of "might is right" is still inconsistent. Killing is OK by omission (e.g. denying health services, or food) but not be comission.

Voluntary contribution of individuals to the health care or food budget of other people is perfectly acceptable. What is NOT acceptable is that the government take work product (money) from other people to give to other people on a long term basis.

Obvious exceptions are in case of some sort of disaster, thereby making it a temporary condition, which was not the fault of the recipients. It is a reasonable notion that government should intercede in emergencies.

As for denying health services, get a freaking grip! Nobody is DENYING anyone services, they just don't want to PAY for them. They want people to pay for their OWN services.

Apart from that, one of the major reasons people cannot AFFORD medical services is because the government has it's fingers so far up the system's bum that it can feel it's Uvula. There are so many examples of artificial distortion of market forces caused by government meddling that we could fill an entire separate thread on this issue alone.

I would love to get into such a discussion, but I'll have to save it for a time when i'm less busy.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes isn't a Libertarian - read some of his other threads.

Most intelligent thing you've said to date. What gave it away? The tagline i've been using for something like a year or two?

Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites, — in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity, — in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption, — in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes isn't a Libertarian - read some of his other threads.

In that case I just find it confusing.

A state which is no doubt common for you, judging by the things you write here.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes isn't a Libertarian - read some of his other threads.

In that case I just find it confusing.

He is.

I don't know what you guys are complaining about, I feel like I have been drafted into teaching a class full of autistic children.

[Diogenes]

What do you think is the PURPOSE of morality other than existence?

I don't think that morality necessarily has a purpose any more than, say, the universe has a purpose.

The word "Purpose" is dependent upon concept of "Will"; a condition to date only noted among living creatures.

For something that has no impact on any form of life, the term "purpose" remains undefined.

Morality has one and only one purpose, and that is to maximize the probabilities of life and health for it's constituency.